July 6, 2007 | By Nathaniel Ward

Good news on free speech

After the addition of two solidly conservative justices in the past two years, the Supreme Court is returning to a proper understanding of the Constitution. One decision last week is indicative of the trend.

“The original meaning of the First Amendment was partially restored by a key Supreme Court decision last week,” Heritage President Ed Feulner writes in The Chicago Sun-Times.

The case concerned a grassroots pro-life organization which was sanctioned under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” law. This law, which President Bush signed despite his concern about its constitutionality, limited the ability of organizations and individuals to speak on political issues close to an election. In their decision, Feulner explains, “the court allowed grassroots advocacy groups to . . . well, advocate.”

While much of McCain-Feingold remains in place, the decision should lead politicians to ask themselves an important question: should we leave it to the courts to do the right thing and block bad laws? “Before they enact future bills, [lawmakers] ought to consider carefully whether each measure is constitutional,” Feulner concludes. “If not, it is their sworn duty under the Constitution to see that the measure does not become law.”

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.