Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[Protagoras]

The law is constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, regardless of our opinions.

So if they nullify the second amendment or the fifth as they have done with this, you think it will be constitutional just because a bunch of lefties say so? That's pitiful.

So, we can all whine and froth at the mouth, or we can start figuring out ways to get our message out and also figure out ways to get this law reversed.

Griping doesn't accomplish anything.

Whatever you do to accomplish your goal of getting this reversed, it will be concidered to be griping. If you say one word against this law, you are griping. How does that shoe fit on that foot?

[Beck_isright]

"The Supreme Court has ruled and you're still here posting."

Lets see 59 days before the election. BS is what this ruling is.

[VRWC_minion]

It's either that, or contemplate the shrinking list of things you're still allowed to do legally.

Actually, I have two minds regarding the advertising ban if that is what you are upset about.

If the purpose is to have orderly elections, we need to have them be as rational and factual as possible. With the ban, we will still get the dirt dished to us, it will just happen months in advance of the election instead of the day before. for example, the DWI report regarding Bush was saved for maximum damage. Voters reacted emotionally with few facts and without the entire story. Now, if there is damaging information the card will have to be played early on. If its truly bad it will stick. If its just a dirty trick, it will pass to the memory bin by November.

On the other hand. I don't like the precedent it sets and I don't like the problem that occurs if damaging information is discovered after the deadline. The precedent could begin a process by which congress controls more and more of our public airways for elections.

[Mo1]

Oh .. I guess I should thank you for the 8 year nightmare huh?

[Miss Marple]

Perhaps (given that this was pre-September 11) he was looking at the tax cuts, and other items on his agenda as being more important. And, perhaps, like many others here, including Congressman Billybob and me, he thought that it would be overturned.

I am quite interested in Sandra Day O'Connor's apparent reversal of her opinion. I am wondering if she has been threatened.

[Howlin]

Leave to you to think that everybody has their mind in the gutter like you do.

[NittanyLion]

And I never said that the House and Senate would override the veto and waste a lot of time BECAUSE I DIDN"T KNOW THAT.

"We all know that if Bush vetoes this bill, the House will override his veto; and we're right back where we are today, with nothing but wasted time to show for it."

98 posted on 03/25/2002 3:18:01 PM EST by Howlin

[VRWC_minion]

So Dred Scott WAS in fact, Constitutionally speaking, a slave??

When passed, yes and today its not. That's our system.

[ImpBill]

Your are really wired up aren't you? You stated just a couple of posts back, " I said I didn't agree with the bill or his signing;"

I stated the same thing and give my opinion on how "I" believe he abrogated his Constitutional Oath and duty.

And yet you think I should start a petition to Impeach. I don't think I have that power and if I did I don't want to see him impeached. I voted for him, gave money to his campaign, and feel a bit miffed about his actions on this and some other domestic policies of his. I state my objections, which apparently by your statement are the same as yours and you fly off the handle at me.

Get a grip.

Finis

[BureaucratusMaximus]

This is a good thread for the "Bush Bash" crowd.

Odd, though, how they leave out the vemonous spew for all those in the house and Senate. You'd think Bush was responsible for the Black plague, too!

In Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution it is written:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress has regularly and routinely regulated speech.

Do you believe the Congress did not have the power to stop the Hitler Youth from organizing and giving speeches for the Fuehrer during World War II? Or that they cannot prevent Al Queda from recruiting within this country?

Advertizing is NOT identical with speech and as a part of the manner of elections can be regulated.

[Howlin]

Do you look at everything in your life as what the worst possible case scenario is?

If so, I feel sorry for those around you.

[Beck_isright]

Post 11? Not in this thread....

[concerned about politics]

Is abortion okay?

Constitutionally? The way our government officials are chosen? Yes. We vote for those who speak for us.
Morally, ethically, no.
If you wish to change it, you have to change not the government, but the hearts of the people who vote for their representives.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

almost ALL the republicans, with the exception of McCain and a few other idiots, voted AGAINST this law and ALL the democrats voted FOR it. So the only bums who should be thrown out is the dems. If you punish the republicans who stood up for us, why would you ever expect them to stand up for us again?

. . . and unfortunately "a few other idiots" included the PotUS . . .

SIGH.

Am I still allowed to say that?

[B Knotts]

The law is constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, regardless of our opinions.

Hardly.

Abortion is not truly a constitutional right, is it?

Of course it isn't; the court decided wrongly in that case, and millions have suffered the consequences.

The fact that the court issues a hair-brained decision upholding a blatantly unconsitutional law doesn't make it constitutional; it just makes it legally enforceable.

[Congressman Billybob]

Actually, a TV ad that lists thousands of names and deliberately violates this law and decision, is entirely possible. There is another provision of the FEC law that helps. One clause says that broadcasters MUST run a political ad as submitted and cannot refuse it or censor it.

Using that, an advertiser I know ran an ad on ABC radio, as I recall, for Barry Commoner, then a candidate for President, that used the word "Bullsh*t." They HAD to run it, and did. It cost $900 to run. It garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity.

There are ways to fight this cr*p, and I intend to be in the forefront of the battle. But obviously the Supreme Court is a lost cause for defending the First Amendment rights of citizens.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[Beck_isright]

"Do you look at everything in your life as what the worst possible case scenario is?"

Not at all. I just pay attention to the detail. If you listen at all to Rush, Hannity or Savage, etc., you would have heard how they realize the damage this ruling will cause. But hey, not all of us can live in a land of purple dinosaurs and talking clouds like you do.

[hellinahandcart]

You're wasting text on me until the moment you type the words "THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS. NOT CONGRESS, NOT BUSH, NOT THE SUPREME COURT".

[justshutupandtakeit]

They were the death knell and part of the reason was the propaganda mileage Jeffersonians got out of opposing them. Rather than being seen as rather trivial and less orneous than the State laws the RAT propagandists where able to convince the ignorant yahoos they were the manifestations of tyranny.

Then Jefferson turned around and had his supporters persecute his critics in State courts where Truth was NOT a defense under the libel laws. Monumental hypocrisy is the only accurate description of this.