In anticipation of major court cases that could cut against the Obama Administration, the NYT has been targeting Chief Justice John Roberts and other right leaning members. However, its editorial in defense of First Amendment freedoms rightly credits the Chief Justice checking congressional excesses and deserves special praise…

Just a few days after a running a front page piece that essentially fixed a bull’s-eye around Chief Justice John Roberts and other more conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, The New York Times has followed up with an editorial about first amendment jurisprudence that deserves praise and recognition. At issue, is a high court ruling against a congressional law that bans depictions of animal cruelty.

Although the House has introduced a modified version of the legislation, the editorial argues that federal lawmakers have not yet grasped the constitutional points Roberts has made. As repulsive as the images are, it is not permissible for congress to create a new list of First Amendment exceptions.

“Justice Roberts said the court cannot create a new exception to free speech by simply balancing the value of the speech against its harm to society,” the editorial points out. “The First Amendment `reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs,’ Roberts wrote. `Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.’ Almost no one would say depictions of animals being crushed or mutilated are worthwhile. The concept is so repulsive that animal rights advocates persuaded a very busy House to pass a new bill outlawing them.”

Animal cruelty does not fit the strict the strict definition of obscenity as it applies to U.S., the editorial explains. “A better analogy would have been to child pornography, in which the act of taking pictures of children is itself illegal,” the Times says. “But Justice Roberts said animal cruelty is not in that category either. The First Amendment is a remarkably fragile institution that does not need more exceptions carved from its meaning.”

Freedom is sometimes a hard item to live with and accept. American citizens from across the political spectrum and from a variety of different religious faiths must sometimes absorb material that offends their sense of decency. The NYT is spot on here with an editorial that strikes all the right notes

Thanks  in no small part to President George W. Bush’s successful nominations, the U.S. Supreme Court is perhaps the most conservative in history a front page report in The New York Times declares. In reality, this claim is greatly overstated despite recent rulings. The key swing vote is highly unpredictable and quite left-leaning. Moreover, the more conservative members could retire in short order opening the way for another Obama pick…

Although the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has issued recent rulings that are reflective of a conservative jurisprudence, a front page report running in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times greatly overstates the rightward shift. The article is built around a database created by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that gauges the ideological complexion of court rulings and the leanings of individual members.

“In the database, votes favoring criminal defendants, unions, people claiming discrimination or violation of their civil rights are, for instance, said to be liberal,” the report explains. “Decisions striking down economic regulations and favoring prosecutors, employers and the government are said to be conservative.”

Over next few months, the high court could find itself positioned to rule against the Obama Administration on major public policy fronts. This might explain why the president himself sought to de-legitimize the more conservative members of the bench during his January State of the Union Address.

With eye toward upcoming court cases that could jeopardize liberal preferences, Adam Liptak has crafted a well-written, engaging report that compares and contrasts the record of recently appointed justices with their immediate predecessors. It also examines some of the more monumental cases within their larger historical context. However, some key points do go overlooked.

While the article suggests the court could be entering a new era of stability in light of new appointees, some of the more conservative members who are in their 70s could step down in short order. If Obama selects just one replacement that would dramatically shift the court’s makeup.

Moreover, it is misleading to conflate decisions that overrule precedent with some form of activism. Contrary to what is often taught in law schools, the U.S. Constitution and U.S. constitutional law are often two very different items. Recent court rulings that overturn earlier decisions divorced from the text’s original meaning are more about restoration and less about activism. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the McDonald V. Chicago case that is highly instructive here. The Times, like many media outlets, has a distorted view of what activism really means.

“The Roberts court is finding laws unconstitutional and reversing precedent — two measures of activism — no more often than earlier courts,” the report says. But the ideological direction of the court’s activism has undergone a marked change toward conservative results.”

Unfortunately, this assessment omits any consideration of judicial reasoning. As the Times acknowledges, the Roberts Court has actually been quite restrained in its approach toward precedent by historical standard. Although liberal sensibilities may be offended by court rulings that reverse precedent, the majority of justices have argued on the basis of law not ideology.

But the article does call attention to the single most important change on the court concerning the replacement President Bush selected for Sandra Day O’Connor.

“Though Chief Justice Roberts gets all the attention, Justice [Samuel] Alito may thus be the lasting triumph of the administration of President George W. Bush,” the reporter correctly points out. “He thrust Justice Kennedy to the court’s center and has reshaped the future of American law.”

It is easy to forget that Justice Alito was Mr. Bush’s second choice,” the report continues. “Had his first nominee, the apparently less conservative Harriet E. Miers, not withdrawn after a rebellion from Mr. Bush’s conservative base, the nature of the Roberts court might have been entirely different. By the end of her almost quarter-century on the court, Justice O’Connor was without question the justice who controlled the result in ideologically divided cases.”

Since joining the court, Alito has voted decisively in cases involving race preferences and campaign finance reform that stand in stark contrast to Justice O’Connor’s earlier rulings. There’s no question that Alito will remain force on the court for years to come. However, Liptak places far too much weight and faith in the idea of Justice Anthony Kennedy as a reliable vote on behalf of constitutionalism. He is best described as a libertarian legislator who has racked up a multitude of activist rulings.

Kennedy has staked key votes on abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), gay rights (Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas), the Establishment Clause (Lee v. Weisman), capital punishment (Roper v. Simmons, Kennedy v. Louisiana) and national security (Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdan) that should give strict constructionists good reason for pause. He also joined with Justice O’Connor in the past citing foreign law as the basis for certain rulings.

Anytime a report makes smart use of data and carefully constructed definitions  it should be taken seriously. This article certainly makes the cut. But readers could just as easily conclude that the Roberts Court is actually more center-left than it is right. The public after all is much more right-leaning than the news media.

Although a federal court has ruled against FCC plans to further control the Internet, government agents and far-left pressure groups are redoubling their efforts to advance new regulations. The NYT and other media outlets have a special obligation to expose the radical elements working to undercut freedom and autonomy on the world wide web…

After reporting on a federal appeals court decision that limits the ability of federal regulators to control Internet traffic, The New York Times should now investigate actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that seemingly violate legal directives. A close examination of the pressure groups lined up in opposition to the court order and in favor of “Net Neutrality” would also interest readers.

The key player here is Free Press, a national non-profit group, lobbying aggressively for greater government control of the Internet. Seton Motley, president of LessGovernment.org, has kept careful tabs on “Media Marxists” who are connected with Free Press and other allied groups.

A good starting point for an investigative piece would be with the “coalition letter” released on June 29 that includes 150 signers expressing opposition against the Comcast v. FCC decision that checkmates federal regulations. There are radical elements pushing coercive measures that would subtract away from the autonomy and creativity of the World Wide Web. Motley’s post on RedState.com offers up some disconcerting details concerning the unsavory ties of coalition members.

“Another of the signers is James Rucker, the co-founder of ColorofChange.org.  This space cadet entity’s other co-founder?  Van Jones – the self-defined Marxist whose 9-11 Trutherism forced the Barack Obama Administration to dispatch him from his gig as the Administration’s Green Jobs Czar.

And then there’s Free Press.  Which was co-founded by another avowed Marxist – Robert McChesney.  McChesney is a master of the insidious written word.

Here’s what McChesney wrote about `net neutrality’:

At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

Speaking of 9-11, here is McChesney less than two weeks after that horrible day:

The United States is, I think, by any honest account, the leading terrorist institution in the world today.

McChesney on Venezuelan Communist thug Hugo Chavez:

Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

And McChesney on America’s capitalist system:

There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

When the Times reported on the court case back in April, it acknowledged that Congress might respond with legislation empowering the FCC to establish greater regulatory control. Since the Democratic commission members are already working to reclassify broadband regulations, it would appear the “net neutrality” forces are getting their ducks in a row.

Only a few months ago The Times suggested that Obama Administration would need to scale back its ambitions for the FCC.

“More broadly, the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could raise obstacles to the Obama administration’s effort to increase Americans’ access to high-speed Internet networks,” the report said.

“For example, the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.

The F.C.C. will now have to reconsider its strategy for mandating `net neutrality,’ the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers. One option would be to reclassify broadband service as a sort of basic utility subject to strict regulation, like telephone service. Telephone companies and broadband providers have already indicated that they would vigorously oppose such a move.”

But later in the report, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made it clear that he would make every effort to push his agenda past the court ruling. The Times, which did a very adept job of reporting on the immediate fallout of the court case, should ask the chairman to explain how current efforts impact Internet freedom.

Why is the reclassification necessary?

Throughout history certain U.S. Supreme Court justices have offered concurring opinions (for better or worse) that side with the majority of justices but for a distinct reason. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has opened the way to a more principled jurisprudence that does not fixate on precedent. His opinion in McDonald v. Chicago warrants additional reporting…

Within the academy and the news media, prevailing opinion holds that the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1873 Slaughter-House cases essentially negated the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution.

However, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued that this case was incorrectly decided. Unlike his colleagues, who ruled in favor of extending Second Amendment rights to the states on the basis of the 14 amendment’s due process clause, Thomas argued for restoring the amendment’s privileges and immunities command. His concurring opinion included as part of McDonald v. Chicago is worthy of closer examination in the news media as it goes into great detail about original of the second amendment and its relevance to contemporary Americans.

The New York Times report that reviewed the major points made by majority and dissenting justices does an effective of encapsulating the divergent arguments. There is no denying the complexity involved in various court cases and the reporter deserves credit for covering a lot of ground in limited space.

However, there is room for a separate piece on the connection between the second amendment and civil rights that is worthy of an additional report. The following few paragraphs reference Justice Thomas’s distinct view without going into great detail:

“Many constitutional scholars had hoped that the court would use Monday’s decision, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, to revise its approach to how constitutional protections are applied to, or `incorporated against,’ the states.

They argued that the court should rely not on the due process clause but on the 14th Amendment’s `privileges or immunities’ clause, which says that `no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.

But only Justice Thomas signed on for that project.”

Since the 1940s, Supreme Court justices have been arguing about whether or not certain federal rights should also be applied the states. It is evident now that this debate could continue well into the 21^st Century.

His concurring opinion could serve as the foundation of future rulings aimed at expanding constitutional rights that have been locked away as the result of long-standing precedents that were wrongly decided.

As is typically the case with court decisions that do not break with liberal sentiment, the NYT gives great weight and space to dissenting views. Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens are both cited at some length and their opinions certainly deserve coverage. After all, any 5-4 decision could potentially be reversed over time as new justices are named to the bench. But Justice Thomas could be a pointing the way to a more principled jurisprudence rooted in the fundamental rights of the Constitution.

His opinion was somewhat lost in the coverage this time around but it is very rich, very well research and wide open to ambitious journalists.

The potential economic fallout from the Obama Administration’s moratorium on new deep water oil is difficult to overstate. As he prepares to appeal a ruling from a federal judge overturning the presidential directive, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar should be asked about some troubling job loss projections.

With Interior Secretary Ken Salazar working to renew the administration’s push for a six month moratorium on deep water oil and gas drilling, the New York Times should consider balancing out its coverage with job loss projections that trade organizations have published.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in New Orleans sided with industry groups and ruled against Obama’s order. As the administration prepares to appeal this ruling, the NYT should ask Salazar and other key figures to rationalize their actions with hard economic realities described in the court ruling.

The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association and other trade associations have offered up some important pieces of information that cannot be so blithely dismissed and are worthy of coverage.

The facts as they are presented by LMOGA shows that there is considerable weight standing behind the 22 page ruling from Judge Martin Feldman who is with the U.S. District Court in Louisiana. The burden is on Salazar not business interests that appear to have their facts in order. He should asked about the job loss projections before the appeal is filed.

Unfortunately, the press continues to give him a free pass. The most recent report in NYT about the deepwater horizon explosion and the BP oil spill uncritically repeats Salazar’s accusation that the ruling was unjustified.

“In Washington, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar  said Wednesday that he was preparing new evidence to support a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and was prepared to vigorously challenge a federal judge’s ruling on Tuesday that the drilling ban was unjustified,” the report says. Appearing before a Senate committee, Mr. Salazar said the “pause” in the drilling of 33 deepwater wells in the gulf was essential until the causes of the April 20 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil leak were fully understood.”

Going forward, The Times should report the following:

* Gulf production represents 27% of the US oil and 15% of US natural gas production.

* Deepwater production represents more than 70% of total Gulf of Mexico production, so the moratorium will ultimately make us more dependent on foreign sources which don’t share our environmental standards. The oil will arrive via pipelines or on tankers, which are also at risk for spills. America will lose tens of thousands of jobs.

* The offshore drilling industry is responsible for 200,000 jobs in the Gulf region.

* The moratorium could cost 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next two to three weeks alone, and potentially 10,000 in the coming months. To put that in context, the entire U.S. economy created only 41,000 new private jobs in May, according to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development.

* For each of the 33 Louisiana platforms idled by the work stoppage, up to 1,400 jobs and potentially $330 million in lost wages per month are at risk.

* The moratorium will cost the federal government approximately $120 to $150 million in lost royalty payments in 2011, and $300 to $500 million in lost corporate taxes, according to Consultants Wood Mackenzie.

* Since 1947, oil companies have drilled more than 42,000 wells in the Gulf. Current production is about 1.6 million barrels a day, and four-fifths of that is from deep water. Yet in a typical year, spills equal only several hundred barrels, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

* Nearly 60% of today’s 7,300 active Gulf leases are in deep water, including the 20 highest-producing leases in the Gulf.

* According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), a moratorium in the Gulf puts 300,000 barrels a day at risk.  That’s 300,000 barrels a day that will now need to be imported from foreign sources, sending revenue and jobs overseas and raising its own safety issues.

Reaction to President Obama’s six-month moratorium on offshore deepwater drilling should also find its way into the reporting. Here are some suggested quotes:

* Charlotte Randolph, LaRouche Parish President: “Mr. President, you were looking for someone’s butt to kick. You’re kicking ours,” in pleading for the moratorium to end.

* Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Every one of these deepwater wells employs directly hundreds of people and indirectly thousands.  This is one company. This is one well. It’s a terrible situation and no one is making light of it, but what I’m saying, as strongly as I can, to this president is the economic analysis is devastating to many companies, thousands of companies… And we’d better be very careful before we drive every one of these deepwater wells to Africa or India.”

* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R): ”During one of the most challenging economic periods in decades, the last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more. The Louisiana Department of Economic Development estimates that the active drilling suspension alone will result in a loss of 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next 2-3 weeks and potentially over 10,000 Louisiana jobs within a few months.””

* Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R): “”I don’t think we should have a moratorium; it is very reasonable to continue to drill. If we don’t, then all this oil drilling equipment is going to leave the Gulf of Mexico. It is going to go to West Africa, Brazil, to Australia, to China and it is not going to be back in six months when the moratorium is over. It is going to be gone.”

* Frank Corder, City Councilman, Pascagoula, MS: “”Many of our citizens on the Coast work on oil rigs in the Gulf and local businesses support, repair, and construct these rigs. To allow this unfortunate accidental disaster to shape our nation’s future energy policy in terms of offshore drilling and thus essentially taking the food off the tables of so many in our city, county and state would be an additional tragedy. Further, since when do we as Americans propagate a defeatist attitude. We are the country of innovation and invention. We should learn from this disaster, yes, but it should not be used as a political football to promote a liberal energy policy that ultimately makes us more dependent on foreign oil.”

A front page report that details a ruling from Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the Federal District Court in New Orleans blocking Obama’s drilling moratorium is not unbalanced but it is incomplete. Right from the beginning, the Administration has been hostile toward domestic energy production.

In his 22 page opinion that imposed an injunction against President Obama’s drilling moratorium Tuesday, Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the United State District Court wrote that the administration failed to justify the severe economic hardship that could result from the order.

A front page report in the New York Times on the White House response does a reasonable job of including conflicting policy perspectives. However, the report could have been enriched with a longer historical view of Obama’s energy policies.

Feldman’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by business groups that are involved with offshore drilling operations. The judge agreed that there was no hard evidence to suggest that remaining projects were unsafe in the aftermath of the BP oil spill. The Obama Administration is already appealing the decision and remains poised to short circuit any efforts aimed at domestic energy production.

This much is apparent going all the way back to the period immediately following the inauguration when the administration declared large tracts of public land off limits for any energy use. Moreover, Obama recently reaffirmed his commitment to “cap and trade” legislation that was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate.

A key quote from Obama’s State of the Union Speech is also worth referencing:

“I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy,” Obama said.  “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.”

But recent studies show that so-called green jobs are heavily subsidized and often quite transitory. There is also the on-going “climategate” scandal that broke late last year and showed how researchers manipulated scientific data.

The upshot of NYT piece is that provides readers with lengthy quotes from the judge’s ruling and allows for key Republican to offer a dissenting view. The downside exists where the White House is given a free pass to declare offshore oil drilling unsafe without any hard evidence.

An effort is also made to discredit the judge by way of suggesting that there is a conflict of interest between Feldman and various business interests.

“Several groups critical of the ruling highlighted a financial disclosure form filed by Judge Feldman in May 2009,” the report says. “It showed that as recently as 2008, he owned stock in several energy-related firms — including Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig. A coalition of environmental groups released a statement by Catherine Wannamaker, senior lawyer at the Southern Environmental Law Center, decrying the ruling as `outrageous.’”

But these same environmental groups have made generous donations to President Obama and federal lawmakers how are continuing to push for new regulatory regimes. These potential conflicts should not un-reported even as the NYT carries the water for green groups opposed to the injunction.

President George W. Bush was 2-2 with his nominees to the high court. But this was the exception and not the rule as far as Republican presidents are concerned from the perspective of strict constructionists. This news analysis piece from the NYT contains some valuable info, but proceeds from a skewed perspective…

Strict constructionists who have long sought to restore the U.S. Supreme Court to its proper station in the constitutional order will be surprised to learn that Republican presidents have been adept at installing so-called conservative judges.

This is the central point of a “News Analysis” piece that ran on the front page of The New York Times shortly after Solicitor General Elena Kagan was nominated to replace retiring Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.

This is a very instructive piece in that it demonstrates how far removed the liberal news media is from the idea of a restrained judiciary and how this affects coverage of nominees who are genuine constitutionalists.

“The selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the nation’s 112^th justice extends a quarter-century pattern in which Republican presidents generally install strong conservatives on the Supreme Court while Democratic presidents pick candidates who often disappoint their liberal base,” The Times declares.

Come again?

Republican presidents including Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and George Bush Sr. are actually responsible for nominating some of the most activist liberal judges in recent history. Nevertheless, the proponents of a restrained judiciary should be pleased with the progress that has been made over the past few decades, the article suggests.

“Liberals have had Scalia envy for nearly a quarter century, only to be let down,” the reporter explains. “They considered President Bill Clinton’s selections of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to be satisfactory but not satisfying, much like the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor last year. While Justice Ginsburg came closest to what they were looking for, given her record advocacy for women’s rights, she does not go far enough for them on capital punishment and other issues.”

Apparently liberals have been less influential where the court selections of their own Democratic presidents are concerned than their conservative counterparts, The Times laments. Even if there is a kernel of truth here, the article omits any mention of the character assassination left wing pressure groups organized against some of the most capable jurists in recent memory; most notably Judge Robert Bork who was blocked from confirmation and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas who ultimately prevailed.

But, at the same time, the article does raise some good points. For example, The Times correctly points out that conservatives have reframed the debate more to their liking in the confirmation process.

“Sonia Sotomayor echoed conservatives in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year by rejecting the idea of a “living” Constitution that evolves, and even President Obama said recently the court has gone too far in the past,” the report observes.

There’s also a very helpful chart that tracks the conservative voting rate of Supreme Court justices going all the way back to the time of Franklin Roosevelt. There’s been more of swing in the conservative direction in recent years, the chart shows. Also included, is another study that indicates four of the five most conservative judges going back to 1937 are on the current court.

But this is a matter of perspective. It’s only in the past 30 years that organizations like the Federalist Society have helped “originalist” jurisprudence and the high court still lacks a solid constitutionalist majority.

Financial disclosure for thee, but not for me. This is the message union bosses are transmitting to average Americans through The New York Times. Even as the White House and Congressional Democrats push for additional provisos aimed against politically active corporations, Obama officials are rescinding disclosure requirements for organized labor’s top officials….

President Obama campaigned on openness and transparency in government but his top officials are rolling back financial disclosure statements and suppressing documentation that should be available to the public. Unions with receipts of $250,000 or more are required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Labor Management and Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA).

The Bush Administration sought to expand on the requirements for LM-2 and LM-30 forms under former Secretary Elaine Chao. The modified LM-2 forms would have required unions to disclose the name of any party buying or selling union assets of $5,000 or more. As it now stands, unions only need to list the item and the sale or purchase price. Chao also favored a more detailed LM-30 form set up to guard against conflicts of interest  on the part of union shop stewards and other personnel.

On Chao’s watch, over 900 union officials were convicted on fraud, conspiracy and embezzlement charges. Don Todd, who served as deputy assistant secretary in the department’s Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), said the financial disclosure requirements that are now being repealed under Obama “raised red flags that alerted investigators.”

Union officials who attended a Labor Department forum last year organized by the Obama Administration’s OLMS officials asked for the pre-Bush format to be restored. The new forms were too burdensome and too costly, they claimed. The Obama Administration has now obliged union bosses who were opposed to the expanded disclosure requirements.

But the real losers here may be rank and file union members who will lose out on their ability to track how their organization’s finances are begin handled.

“With regard to the LM-2 it is my belief that the department is pulling back on the new forms because the union leadership is concerned about how their members might react when they see how generous the compensation is,” said Todd who is now research director with Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “Union officers support disclosure for everyone except for themselves,” he added.

Average union workers who are concerned about their membership dues are being allocated might be interested in learning about some of the filings that have been made publicly available that would not have been exposed on the pre-Bush forms.

For example, 14 national unions were listed as giving $3.2 million to a planning committee responsible for private funding for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

While the Obama Administration is working against disclosure requirements for unions, it is advancing legislation that would compel private companies to be more forthcoming about their political involvement. The New York Times has a write up on White House efforts aimed at reversing or at least diluting the impact of a recent Supreme Court ruling that precludes the government from banning corporate spending on campaigns. 

The high court ruling in Citizens United v FEC overturned restrictions on businesses and unions that many constitutional experts viewed as a violation of First Amendment freedoms. President Obama was sharply critical of the ruling and even rebuked the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address. As is evident from recent coverage, The Times is in sympathy with the president.

Congressional Democrats who have joined with the White House in this effort to heighten corporate disclosure requirements have expressed hope that it might dissuade future campaign efforts aimed against policy changes favored by their party.

“One provision would require the chief executive of any company or group that is the main backer of a campaign advertisement to personally appear in television and radio spots to acknowledge the sponsorship,” officials quoted in The Times said.

“In reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision, lawyers for the administration and Congressional Democrats soon realized that the majority’s strong language left them little room to try to ban corporate money altogether, according to people involved in the discussions,” the report continues. “They have focused instead on forcing public disclosure of political backers as a way to bring transparency to the process and, perhaps, to discourage excessive corporate involvement.”

Excessive corporate involvement?

These uppity Americans who are organized within corporations and mindful of free speech rights need to be checked and restrained by new legislation, even as union bosses are relieved of their disclosure requirements, according to The Times.

At the very least, The Times should follow up with a report that explores some of the “hope and change” in Obama’s Labor Department that does the bidding of union bosses at the expense of average workers.

Discerning readers may notice that the same concern expressed here over the specter of undisclosed corporate support for political activity somehow goes missing where union efforts are concerned.

Apparently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is getting started on new regulations that have not been sanctioned by Congress. This has been mentioned in the New York Times, but readers should also know there a new resolution has been introduced that would blunt EPA actions…

Although free market organizations and concerned taxpayers are understandably preoccupied with President Obama’s government takeover of the healthcare industry, they should not lose sight of the regulatory schemes that are new brewing under the banner of environmentalism.

In the past few months, the credibility of the “science” underpinning catastrophic claims of global warming has been called into question in the wake of  “Climategate” and updated research. Even so, the Obama Administration remains fixated on imposing new anti-emission standards on industry will most likely result in higher energy costs for average Americans, according to a series of studies.

The New York Times ran a short piece highlighting a new proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that could be the first step along the way toward even greater government intervention. The agency has proposed adding oil and gas facilities that inject carbon dioxide into the group to the list of greenhouse gas sources that must report their annual emissions. As it is, the EPA already stipulates that 31 industries track and document their emissions.

 “Gathering this information is the first step toward reducing greenhouse emissions and fostering innovative technologies for the clean energy future,” Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator,  is quoted as saying in The Times article. “It’s especially important to track potent gases like methane, which traps more than 20 times as much heat as carbon and accelerates climate change.”

In the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA case, the U.S. Supreme Court  ruled that the agency needed to bring its practices more in line with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. There was no strict regulatory requirement outlined in the decision but the EPA finally responded with an endangerment finding last December that declared greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be subjected to regulation and government control. This is where the danger comes in because within the framework of environmentalism, there is no sure way to check the grand designs of government schemers.

“Our health care system is only part of the economy and it’s already half socialized,” Myron Ebell, CEI’s director of global warming policy, observed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “The energy sector is still virtually a free market. If we allow government to take over the energy sector, they will be in your house telling you how much air conditioning you can use or how much heating.”

There is potential  antidote now in circulation that deserves greater media attention. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has introduced a bipartisan resolution that would block the EPA under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), an unheralded provision included as part of The Contract With America.

As the White House and the U.S. Senate prepare to revisit global warming legislation, The Times and other liberal news sources should include Murkowski’s resolution in their coverage. She has attracted support from colleagues on both sides of the political aisle who object to EPA activity that shortcircuits the legislative process.

While they’re at, the NYT should also give more coverage to “climategate” and ask the White House to square its continues support for “cap and trade” with new scientific studies that show natural forces are largely responsible for warming and cooling cycles.

Foreign newspapers that have been hostile toward scientific skeptics in the past are now reporting quite aggressively on the “climategate” scandal. The NYT should try catching up.

Very bright legal minds stand on both sides of the pending constitutional challenges to ObamaCare launched by state officials. The New York Times suggests here that concerned Americans who oppose new mandates shouldn’t bother because precedent is not on their side. But since when do constitutionalists takes cues from the NYT…

An opening salvo has been fired against state officials who are already moving against Obama-Care on constitutional grounds.  The bill would rewrite the relationship between the federal government and the states by way of imposing new mandates that trample on individual liberty, they argue.

The pullout quote from The New York Times report states: “Constitutional scholars say precedent is on the legislation’s side.” The article then proceeds to quote several legal experts who claim the local efforts are doomed to failure.

Well reasoned-intelligent individuals stand on both sides of the debate. But the coverage here is deliberately skewed so as discourage concerned citizens who may have indentified an effective channel through which can reanimate the principles of limited government.

The Times shows its hand with a quote from Jack M. Balkin, a law professor with Yale University, who is clearly concerned about the larger that may be raised by way of state challenges.

“The attack on this bill is not merely an attack on the substance of this particular measure,” he said. “But it’s also a challenge to understandings that come with the New Deal.”

Clearly, there is some concern here on the part of big government advocates that a constitutional discussion that refocuses attention on the proper station of federal authority could conceivably roll back progressive activity. If the arguments are so weak and unfounded, why so much concern?

Ervin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, is also quoted.

“If the court stays true to its Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last 15 years,” Professor Chemerinskey said,” I think this will be upheld.”

But liberals only support precedents that cut in their ideological direction. They place a greater premium on constitutional law as opposed to the written constitutional itself. There are at least a handful of new precedents handed down in the past few years more to liking of originalists and that they would just assume overturn.

Fortunately, the article does have some space to Randy Barnett, a constitutional law instructor at the Georgetown University Law Center, who sees some merit in the state action. The arguments from various state agents actually “might have success,” he said.

But because Barnett is measured in his comments this should be taken as a sign that the constitutional challenges rooted in the commerce clause do not have serious prospects.

“Still, Professor Barnett was careful not to predict that the opponents of the bill would block the legislation completely,” the report declares. “He said that even if a court were to strike down the requirement to buy insurance, such a ruling would still be likely to leave other elements of the law in place.”

Americans who are ambitious to raise constitutional objections rooted in the long-standing principles that reach back to the founding period should not be dissuaded by the liberal editors at The New York Times.