redblueamerica.com

Yes. My answer is "yes." And this is just a quick hit (I'll return later when I have more time, I promise). But the conservative argument against campaign finance restrictions does not rely on penumbras as much as it relies on the clear language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

So, walk with me now. Combine the well-documented intent of the authors and signatories of the Constitution -- along with the context of another part of the First Amendment that protects the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" -- and it is clear that our founders were more interested in protecting the people's right to speak about their government than about, say, protecting the right to "speak" by publishing pornography. Yet the first is prohibited, while the second is virtually unlimited. Any penumbra-relying here by conservatives (and I'm not granting you that fully) is certainly less convoluted than what even many left-leaning scholars admit is a shaky basis for Roe v. Wade.

The problem conservatives have with many liberal jurists is that they seem to don the night-vision glasses in order to navigate "the shadows," but close their eyes to the Constitution's bright lights.