Proving the assertion with itself?
The political scientist in me just got around to a closer look at the Chronicle's predictably screeching house editorial on the indictments secured by Travis County DA Ronnie Earle in relation to the TRMPAC:
Lawyers for the accused argue that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution trumps Texas law. But if the Constitution supersedes Texas campaign finance law, it would also negate similar provisions in federal campaign finance law. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld such laws as constitutional.
Some defendants and their lawyers stipulate that federal law allows corporate money to be used in Texas elections. This is false. Texas has the right to regulate its elections in any constitutional manner it pleases.
The intent here seems to be to confuse readers into thinking something has been proven!
The argument goes something like this: 1) the indicted officials contend that the First Amendment protects their actions; 2) but if the First Amendment protects their actions, it would also negate other federal campaign finance law; 3) but the Supreme Court has upheld federal campaign finance laws; 4) the First Amendment doesn't protect the actions of the indicted officials because Texas can regulate its elections in any constitutional manner.
Talk about circular reasoning! Since the question itself is about whether or not the First Amendment allows Texas campaign finance law to be interpreted as Earle has interpreted it, it's odd to fashion an argument that concludes with an assertion of the point to be proven (item 4) as proof! Because surely items 2 and 3 are so ambiguous as to be disregarded as anything but speculative -- not legal/analytical -- observations. The crux of the debate is over what is constitutional. That is what will be decided in court(s) eventually.
Further, the political scientist in me cringes every time I see a phrase like "Texas has the right...." Texas is not a person. It's a state. The state government of Texas may have powers, but powers are not rights. The Chronicle should be more careful with its use of language.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/25/04 10:56 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.