Obama Citizenship

#Obama: Alito?s ?You Lie? Moment; FEC Campaign Contributions Update

By Phil

Out of the many whoppers categorized by the Associated Press (via HotAir.com) from last night’s State of the Union speech (or was it, “State of Obama?”), the one that probably sticks out the most was a silent interjection of (likely) “not true” by Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito (also documented at The New York Times, Salon.com, and HuffPo, among many others).

Prof. Jacobson provides the brief transcript below the video:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

AmericanThinker provides the rebuttal:

As Professor Bradley A. Smith observes in the National Review Online:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication… .”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

I had covered the Citizens United v. FEC case here; the LegalTimes blog posted on the “almost unprecedented” nature of the remark:

President Barack Obama’s pointed criticism of the Supreme Court in tonight’s State of the Union address, which we reported on here and here was beyond unusual; it was almost unprecedented. The third branch rarely even merits a mention in the State of the Union speeches, according to a search we’ve made going back to Woodrow Wilson’s speech in 1913 in this University of California Santa Barbara database. (Thanks to editor David Brown for the research.)

Presidents have mentioned the Supreme Court by name only nine times since that Wilson speech nearly a century ago, according to the search, and it would be hard to categorize many of those nine as criticisms. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a lot of grievances with the Court, never mentioned it in any of his State of the Union messages. And Richard Nixon, who campaigned against the Warren Court, mentioned the Supreme Court in a State of the Union talk only once, in 1972, in a bland, welcoming way.

My response is quite simple:

Mr. President, if you’re upset at how the Supreme Court recently ruled, then encourage Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to change the 1st Amendment.

Eric Dondero at LibertarianRepublican posted on the following quotes:

From Tim Daniels, Left Coast Rebel:

Tonight’s scolding of the Supreme Court and clear usurpation of the integrity of separation of power in this country is just one of those things too. It’s bigger than the entire charade of a ‘State of (I want my socialist) Union’ by the Obamanation. It speaks to the highest order of malfeasance and monarchical evil.

Jim Lagnese, The Right Guy:

Obama chides the Supreme Court… The dilettante in chief continues his populist rehabilitation tour with his SOTU speech before congress. Does this guy understand anything? Can he and does he take responsibility for anything? Can he ever give a speech that isn’t about him at all? He a sorry excuse for a president and leader of a country.

Steve Nielson, The Liberty Republican:

the spending freeze, tax cuts, and budget cuts are being proposed by a man eager to win back the hearts and minds of the independents ahead of the 2010 election with hopes that in two more years he can ram through socialist ideal after socialist ideal.

From Reason H&R:

The Libertarian Guy -- [You Lie!]I would give a weeks’ pay to hear someone yell that again.

Or “Shut the f[---] up, you smooth-talking proto-socialist prick”. I’d give TWO weeks’ pay to hear that, verbatim. [censor mine]

Perhaps — as @freespeech619 pointed out today on Twitter — maybe the President was attempting to use — shall we say — verbal techniques meant to persuade…? Hint: question and be critical of what the government says.

On the Federal Election Commission front, there has been an update on an issue I originally reported back on January 15, 2009.  commenter “lu” remarked that MUR6142 has had some new documentation added. The PUMAPac site had an original posting here, and a separate site also contains an update.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy USAToday.com

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on January 28, 2010 (boomark / email).