If it could be any clearer that Democrats are the anti-liberty party, I really don’t know how they could accomplish it. Mad Men’s Don Draper couldn’t come up with a marketing campaign that could communicate more clearly to America that they are unquestionably the party of government and when in control will always seek to consolidate and increase their power to consolidate and increase the power of government.
While certainly the Democrat’s passive-aggressive approach to President Obama’s use of government resources at any of the Alphabet Agencies to attack his political enemies indicates a certain disdain for honest governance, two recent direct efforts to “correct” our Constitution are such clear affronts to individual liberty as to be undeniable. In both of these cases, the end result is that the Democrats are saying to the American people that they have no say in their own government and that they should just sit down and shut up.
Freaking out after a pro-individual liberty ruling by the SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case, Congressional Democrats have aligned behind the “Not My Boss’s Business Act” (alternatively titled the Get Laid, Get Paid Act).
This little legislative gem is the Democrat’s effort to counteract the decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is the act that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products based their challenge of certain forms of birth control required by Obamacare (they considered 4 forms out of the 20 mandated types to be the equivalent to abortion, something that the plaintiffs objected to on religious grounds).
The putative basis for this bill is to force employers to recognize a woman’s “right” to “reproductive freedom” but it’s true effect in a legal system constructed on the concept of stare decisis (respect for precedent) is to enshrine the idea that private entities have no right to challenge any decision of government on religious grounds even though the First Amendment to our Constitution clearly states that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This bill was written by the learned Patty Murray, Senatoress from the People’s Republic of Washington. If you don’t remember who Patty is, she gained a degree of notoriety a few years ago via this quote explaining the popularity of Osama bin Laden to some high school students:
“He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He’s made their lives better.”
For the record, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and yes, Murray herself, overwhelmingly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 and Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed it into law that same year. Even the frazzled grandma of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was on board although it seems that the ravages of time and possible dementia have erased that memory from her consciousness.
But in 1993, the RFRA didn’t really threaten government power – now it does.
Harry Reid predictably became unhinged, noting that even though all white men found a “right” to abortion in the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution in Roe v. Wade, these same “white men” (apparently “white” now describes and ideology as Clarence Thomas is most certainly not a Caucasian) should in no way decide that a person or private entity should be able to object to abortion in reoigious grounds when the government decides what is right for America. Pelosi has also been swatted by Megyn Kelly of Fox News and even the left leaning PolitiFact for lying about the SCOTUS decision to gin up fear and support for Murray’s bill.
Harry Reid and his gaggle of lock-step Senate Democrats have also monolithically supported New Mexico Senator Tom Udall’s proposed amendment to limit free speech.
As Hans A. von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery recently noted in Legal Memorandum #125 posted at the Heritage Foundation:
“An effort is underway in the Senate to amend the Constitution to restrict free speech by allowing Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. A constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Tom Udall (D–NM) would grant Congress the power to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections…
Frustrated with the Supreme Court’s consistent defense of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the Left is driving a movement to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but as the Supreme Court has recognized, bans on spending are indeed bans on speech. Limiting spending on political communication necessarily affects the quantity and quality of that speech. Rather than “level the playing field,” this constitutional amendment would protect incumbents and violate a fundamental right of Americans.”
Free speech for me, but not for thee – especially when it might get me voted out. We have to pass the laws to see that is in them. Sit down and shut up, we are the government and we are here to help you.
As many a philosopher has noted, some of the greatest evils of man are those that have been perpetrated under the guise of being “for the good of the people.”
Like Patty Murray’s bill and Udall’s effort to circumvent the First Amendment referenced above, the modern Democrat Party seems not to understand that “shall make no law” in the First Amendment really means “shall make no law.”