Carroll: Missing his chance
Friday, April 6 at 12:00 AM
Rumor has it that Rudy Giuliani is a former U.S. attorney who knows a thing or two about constitutional law. Rumor likewise says he's a front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, who must woo conservative primary voters if he has a chance to win.
Given these rumors, which happen to be true, the wonder is that Giuliani doesn't realize that government is under no obligation to subsidize Americans' enjoyment of their constitutional rights.
You have a right to free speech, but government doesn't have to buy you a newspaper to run, a soapbox for the park, or a computer for composing e-mail.
We all enjoy a right to own property, but the fellow with no more to his name than the knapsack on his back has not been deprived of his liberty.
So why does Giuliani believe the right to abortion — that most dubious of constitutional imperatives — should be subsidized?
"Ultimately (abortion) is a constitutional right," he recently told a CNN reporter, "and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you make sure that people are protected."
"So," responded the reporter, "you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion in some cases?"
"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," replied Giuliani. "Yes, if that is the status of the law, then I would, yes."
Giuliani later was quick to point out that he does not support changing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk. But the damage is done. He missed a golden chance to walk away from his 1989 support of taxpayer funding for abortion — a radical position that mainstream voters of both parties rarely espouse.
I've been arguing that Giuliani appeals to Republicans on so many issues that social conservatives might defy conventional wisdom and give him a pass on his pro-abortion stance. But the odds on that possibility just grew longer.
Obnoxious, but protected
"More basically," says The Denver Post, "we urge the legislature to add political robocalls to the list of commercial solicitations that can't be sent to Coloradans who have signed on to the no-call list."
Add political robocalls to the list of commercial solicitations? Now that's a neat trick. The Post says "computers have no constitutional rights" — what a relief! — while only "political calls by people are protected speech."
Does that mean a political message sent by computer e-mail to more than one address is a "commercial solicitation," too? Is an editorial in a newspaper (which couldn't be published these days without computers) delivered to multiple homes also unprotected speech?
Political robocalls are often obnoxious speech, no doubt, but obnoxious political speech is just as secure under the First Amendment as the genteel words of the most polished pundit.
And by the way, do robocalls that attack a candidate, ballot measure or legislation ever actually work?
It's one thing to answer the phone to hear the recorded voice of a popular figure such as John Hickenlooper genially pushing, say, a tax for preschool. Even if you disagree, you'll probably listen. But the crude robocalls that so bother critics only make sane listeners want to do the opposite of whatever the phone call urged.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
News.com.
blogs.rockymountainnews.com |
