Here’s a brief recap of the misinformation principles that apply to Mark Levin’s chapter “On the Constitution.” He supports the dogma that links property and liberty together; he omits that the Founders concerns for Supreme Court tinkering were essentially concerns about Federalist tinkering, not what Levin would call Statist tinkering; and he distorts the relative role of a Statist Court in the course of both our early and recent history. The usual mechanisms for how he misinforms apply, accept that to Levin’s credit the Statists in this chapter are a little more real and less of a caricature. He continues in some measure to confuse Founders intent with Federalist intent, seemingly unaware that the majority of colonialists were not Federalists who seek to maximize a federal role in protecting and fostering commerce. The intriguing question for this particular chapter is who does Levin serve by this misinformation. There is no clear cut answer, as a hypothetical example will demonstrate.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976), as you have read on this Forum often enough, was a Supreme Court decision that equated money with free speech. Since the decision occurred after the New Deal, it supposedly was made by a Statist Court according to Levin’s rhetoric. The decision is indeed a glaring example of using substantive due process to overrule representative state government in virtually every attempt at campaign finance reform. There is no doubt in my mind that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson turned over in their graves with this decision. Not only did it usurp states rights, but when “money is free speech” you have empowered interest groups, particularly the ones known as political parties, and their special interest politics. The Founders original intent at the time of the Constitution was to not have political parties at all, precisely because they behave as interest groups.
“Money is free speech” is a derivative of “property is a fence to liberty.” Granted, Madison came up with that gem, but he did put some qualifiers on it, and I doubt that Madison would stick up for that philosophy at both the expense of states rights and the benefit of party democracy. The question for this deconstruction is not where Madison would stand on Buckley v. Valeo, but where would Levin stand? Does he side with “money is free speech?” In this case his misinformation seeks to serve the paternalism that favors wealth elites, in favor of the unequal “Blessings of Liberty” corporations can enjoy due to their government-granted abilities of concentrating resources better than all other types of “individuals.” If Levin condemns the judicial activism behind Buckley v. Valeo then I tip my cap to him, but he undermines much of what he wishes to claim about Statist Courts or the New Deal being the ultimate source of our troubles, whether he realizes that or not.
Liberty and Tyranny suggests up until now that Levin supports not only Buckley v. Valeo, but Lochner v. New York, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., Martin v. Hunter’s lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and all other cases where federal judicial activism usurped the role of states to the ultimate advantage of corporations. What else is one supposed to conclude if he faults federal judicial activism only when interfering with corporations or property as liberty?
Here is previous background material.
An overview of misinformation principles
A basic understanding of free markets
