It seems that not enough can be said about President Obama's State of the Union address. The press and other media still discuss many of the issues he brought out in it.  He left the public with so much fodder that reams could be written to expose him and set the record straight. However, there was one particular point he made that almost seemed extemporaneous (rather than from his teleprompter)--his address toward members of the Supreme Court.

        He contested their decision concerning the campaign finance reform law co-sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold, saying that it “reversed a century of law.”  His remark against the Supreme Court's decision made almost greater news than many other points in his speech. The reason for this is the focus of news media cameras on Justice Samuel Alito. Immediately after Obama's remarks on the court decision, the camera caught Alito shaking his head and seemingly moving his lips.

        The media reported that Alito said, “Not true” to Obama's remarks. This camera focus on Alito spread far and wide across the Internet while few contested what Obama declared concerning the Supreme Court decision. It was as though, like numerous other statements Obama makes, Obama said it so it must be true.  We must simply believe his expertise and constitutional authority.

       However, one other member of the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, spoke out against Obama's intentional ignorance of the facts surrounding the court's decision out of his own sensitivity as a black man. In speaking before the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida, he brought up the Tillman Act of 1907. The reason for this citation is to highlight that the century old Tillman Act arose as a darker side to banning corporate involvement in campaign finance. He said, “Go back and read why Tillman (Senator Benjamin Tillman) introduced that legislation. Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story, he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt there was a need to regulate them.”

        Justice Thomas raises the issue that limiting corporate financing of political campaigns is more political than constitutional. In back of unlimited funds going toward campaigns rest the darker sides of racism and political affiliation or the right to vote and the right to free speech and assembly.

        Being a Southern Democrat, Senator Tillman wished to exclude blacks from the voting booth as well as to gain back power for his party. In 1900, Tillman proclaimed, “We have done our level best [to prevent blacks from voting]...we have scratched our heads to find out how we can eliminate the last one of them. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it.” ¹ One way to stop blacks was to legislate the flow of money toward political campaigns favorable to the black vote and Republicans. This was the racist side that Democrats continued to promote even at the turn of the century when the Tillman Act became law (1907).

        Justice Thomas noted that it would be a mistake to applaud regulation over corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.” He also pointed to the First Amendment as protecting the right to assemble and to speak in the political process regardless if such an assembly were simply individuals coming together or corporations participating with funding. Both were freedoms protected under the Constitution.

        It is ironic that immediately after Obama's criticism, the news media suggested that striking down the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law gave Republicans the edge in raising funds. The irony is that is exactly the reason Tillman wanted the law in 1907--to not only weaken Republicans but also to squash the black vote.

        Freedom of assembly and of speech always has its challenges from those who desire to squash it unless it is in their favor. Fortunately, unlike many other countries, we operate from a constitutionally protected republic, and one of the primary foundations of our Constitution is separation of powers. Obama has the right to raise criticism of the Supreme Court in a speech as he has done many times, but his criticism alone does not give him the right to change the law by fiat. That only occurs in dictatorships.

         It is important to note that during the presidential debate with Senator McCain in 2008, Obama raised the issue that the Constitution did not go far enough in social issues for blacks. That is, the constitutional framers did not create a proactive document in the realm of social issues. Inasmuch as Obama would like to have a socialistic constitution, the framers were wise enough to place barriers to such an arrangement. Their experience with King George proved to be highly useful in creating and ratifying a constitution that resisted a totalitarian system that socialism promotes.

         Rather, our Constitution provides freedoms extended to all citizens regardless of color, creed, or race. The Supreme Court saw through the charade of laws that inhibited the First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly and wisely ruled in favor of liberty once again for the benefit of all classes and citizens in our society.

        Another irony surfaces concerning Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court campaign reform law decision. Obama was wrong concerning the Supreme Court's decision reversing a century old law regarding campaign finance.  However, his reference to a century old campaign finance law (the Tillman Act of 1907) raises questions about how he views campaign finance reform.

        As a black man and a self-professed constitutional lawyer who should have the background of federal law on the tip of his tongue, Obama criticizes a Supreme Court decision that he believed overturns a law intended to reduce freedom for blacks. A question that his statement raises is does Obama support the Tillman Act, the first effort at campaign finance reform?

       Given this situational irony, this raises a question concerning Obama's objection to the Supreme Court decision. Do those “floodgates of special interests” to which Obama referred in his State of the Union refer to blacks? This is a curious predicament. It seems that President Obama has backed himself into the old proverbial corner.
_____________________________________________