The First Amendment

With the hearings taking place over Elena Kagan, there is naturally much discussion regarding the Constitution. One of the most contentious issues is always the First Amendment. The First Amendment is widely known as the amendment where we find the rights to free speech and privacy: two of the the rights most commonly wrestled over. It is the amendment in which abortion and flag burning are anchored. Privacy and speech are important, even vital to democracy. But as important as they are, they are not sufficient. There is another part of the First Amendment: the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. The right to petition government is one of the most important rights we have. It allows us to challenge government and seek remedy for those things we find burdensome or onerous. It is arguably the cornerstone of democracy. It is also the right most often eclipsed in the discussion over the First Amendment.

Every time a right is discovered or expanded by the court, political discourse on the matter ends and the issue is removed from public debate. The matter is settled and cannot be revisited except by the court itself. The public can longer petition the government for change. They certainly cannot petition the court. Redress is no longer available. If there is a grievance, it must be endured. Democracy shrinks as one more issue is removed from the public realm and placed beyond the reach of voters.

The right to petition government is vital to democracy because it gives those unhappy with law or policy the opportunity to change it. The Constitution guarantees that right. No loss is permanent in politics. Each election is a new occasion for the public to avail itself of that right and seek change. Democracy cannot exist without it. To that end, it is the job of the court to ensure that right is protected and available to all people. But what is to be done if the court itself abridges that right? What can be done if the court nibbles away at what the public can and cannot petition? Nothing.

It was never meant for us to take our grievances to the Supreme Court. That is what the statehouse is for. One of the most important jobs of the court is to ensure fair and equal access to the statehouse. But increasingly, access to the statehouse is not enough. People are impatient. Many cannot wait for the statehouse to come around to their point of view. Results are demanded. Political losses have become confused with the abridgement of rights. There is a fear and distrust of democracy among those who rely on courts to secure their political goals. Where democracy is feared and distrusted, it cannot endure.

When the court shifts from determining what the government can and cannot do to what the government ought or ought not do it confuses means with ends and so enters the realm of policy. Society is led down a path to wherever the logic and reasoning of the court takes it. The people must hold their breath every time the court convenes and hope for the best. Indeed, hope is often all they have when it comes to the court. There is no recourse if a decision made by the court runs contrary to the will of the people.

In unrelated news, in its latest release, the Congressional Budget Office announced that, despite the passage of President Obama's health care reform bill and the hundreds of billions spent by the administration to prop up the economy, the national debt will continue to rise. It turns out that the new health care plan passed by Congress will not save money after all. At least it will not save the government money anyway. As it stands, government debt will be be 62 percent of the annual economic output in the U.S by the end of the year. It is predicted to rise to 87 percent by 2020. According to testimony by CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, such a level of debt would be unprecedented. Worse still, it is predicted that the debt will be 109 percent of the GDP by 2025.
We needn't be alarmed though. President Obama is expecting a plan on Wednesday from the deficit commission he appointed. I am sure that as long as the plan does not entail curbing his ambitions or his appetite for big government, Obama will be happy to go along with it, provided, of course, that any painful cuts or reductions can be put off at least until after his reelection. In any event, Obama will be gone before the economy collapses under the weight of the debt. At least I am sure he hopes so.