Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)
FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bcra; blackrobedictators; bush; bushscotuscfr; cfr; elitisttyrants; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccainfeingold; nyt; oligarchy; restrictfreespeech; scotus; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,241-1,2601,261-1,2801,281-1,300 ... 1,941-1,949 next last
To: MineralMan
Sometimes, principles are important. I expect our President to act on principles.

As long as you agree with those principles.

1,261 posted on 12/10/2003 12:35:18 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Those dishing sound no better to me that those at the Dem debate last night, cherry picking their issues while denying the accomplishments of this President.

I've been trolling DU. It's empty. There's a link to this thread. They're all here.
Where did you think all the hate Bush posts came from? Yep. Followers of Coward Dean the homo queen. Suprised?

1,262 posted on 12/10/2003 12:35:58 PM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1254 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
I'm not afraid of the fight, I just am unable to stay on this thread long enough to have it right now. Those dishing sound no better to me that those at the Dem debate last night, cherry picking their issues while denying the accomplishments of this President.

What is the topic of this thread?

The President's accomplishments, or today's Supreme Court ruling on a bad law that he signed?

This was supposed to be a good strategic move, and it backfired.

If you want to talk about the President's accomplishments, feel free. Not sure why you're bothered if others stay on-topic, though.


1,263 posted on 12/10/2003 12:36:46 PM PST by Sabertooth (Credit where it's due: saveourlicense.com prevented SB60, and the Illegal Alien CDLs... for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1254 | View Replies]

To: Dane
More nonsense drivel from the hopelessly ill.
1,264 posted on 12/10/2003 12:36:49 PM PST by Protagoras (Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1260 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Run an ad somewhere that says, "Congressman Clank is a bum and should not be reelected." Then, the rest of the ad should consist of screen after screen of thousands of names of supporters of the ad. It should have this final line. "Come and get us."

I like the way you think.

1,265 posted on 12/10/2003 12:37:22 PM PST by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
I'm one of the people who thought, as did our president, that the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately it was before the USSC decided we should "celebrate diversity" and trash the first amendment. I now believe that the USSC is no longer an American institution.

Perhaps Dubya should have vetoed the bill, but do you really think we needed an internal fight in the middle of the war on terrorism? He had every right to expect that the Justices would actually do their job instead of merely collecting a paycheck on the backs of the people they are so willing to betray.

1,266 posted on 12/10/2003 12:37:23 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1075 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
See Article I Section 4. Such a law as this is part of the "manner of holding elections" which are "prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Yes they can regulate the manner of holding elections. But they can't do so in such a way that it abriges the freedom of speach, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. I think the law does all of those things.

The first amendment, being an amendment, overules the powers of Congress granted in the main body of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights died this month, after an extended illness. First the nine in black declined to even rule on a law which grossly infringed upon a fundamental right protected therein, and now they rule in direct opposition to another provision.

1,267 posted on 12/10/2003 12:38:39 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I've already thought of a way to stick a thumb in the eye of the Supreme Court and this law. Run an ad somewhere that says, "Congressman Clank is a bum and should not be reelected." Then, the rest of the ad should consist of screen after screen of thousands of names of supporters of the ad. It should have this final line. "Come and get us."

This is what I'm proposing to do. Looking at the travesty of a law, it appears that print ad won't work, nor internet (yet), so we'll have to come up with a TV or Radio ad (much cheaper) on a station that reaches 50,000 people who is also willing to run the ad.

Let's do this thing. Let them come and arrest us. Someone needs to draw a line and tell Congress, the President, and the SCOTUS, "This far and no further."

And where's the outrage? When is the massive protest!? Why aren't we gathering in Phoenix with a vat of tar and sacks of feathers and a rail to deal appropriately with RINO McCain? No, instead we've got FReepers even on here defending this crap. Defending it!!? Dammit!!

1,268 posted on 12/10/2003 12:38:43 PM PST by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Why would that make any difference? He did sign the thing.

You're not allowed to point that out. Somehow seven justices on the Supreme Court nominated by Republican Presidents aren't enough.

1,269 posted on 12/10/2003 12:38:58 PM PST by billbears (Rs have stolen two things which Ds believe they own by right: entitlements and big government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1256 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
He's a Constitution minded President.

What color is the sky in your world? He [President Bush] has signed laws which have trampled every single one of the first ten Amendments save number III.

I guess we can be thankful that he hasn't signed a law allowing the quartering of troops in private homes...yet.

1,270 posted on 12/10/2003 12:39:16 PM PST by snopercod (The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BureaucratusMaximus
My suggestion to you: get an education first, then post. You are embarrassing yourself. Not only can you not think; you cannot write.


1,271 posted on 12/10/2003 12:39:53 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1184 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Anybody Bush gets a bit tiring. You might want to get another persona.

You want a list of names? Why? They haven't been approved by the White House and the RNC, so I doubt you would have heard of them anyway. But fine, a short list, Zell Miller

For Immediate Release
Contact: Joan Kirchner
202-224-3643

March 19, 2001

Statement by Senator Zell Miller on Campaign Finance Reform

Washington – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) issued the following statement today as the Senate opened its debate on campaign finance reform:

"This is our best chance yet to repair a badly broken system. We must not let the opportunity pass us by.

"Senators McCain and Feingold have worked on this issue since 1995, and it is on the nation's front burner today thanks to their persistence. They are the quarterbacks on this legislation and I will follow their call in this debate. I will vote for the amendments they favor and I will vote against the amendments they oppose."

-30


1,272 posted on 12/10/2003 12:40:37 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
This law applies only to BROADCAST ads, not print media ads. It is not necessary to pay for an ad on major broadcast media. It is only necessary to run it on ONE station, somewhere, and then make copies fully available for reuse FREE on any and all news channels. I'm starting to plan this out.

Congressman Billybob

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

1,273 posted on 12/10/2003 12:41:04 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Perhaps Dubya should have vetoed the bill, but do you really think we needed an internal fight in the middle of the war on terrorism?

When it comes to priority over a fight over the first admendment and the WOT, I'll pick the first admendment every time. Need to get more Republican Senators in office. However I fear that this ruling gives the Demoncrats the edge, therefore we will lose Bush, several senators, and the WOT.

1,274 posted on 12/10/2003 12:41:45 PM PST by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
This was supposed to be a good strategic move, and it backfired.

How do you know, Sabertooth? We're dealing with an unknown. I do respect your opinion. You're a pretty level headed person.
I wonder, though. The Democrats are pretty dumb. It's easy for Bush to pull the wool over their eyes. This could be a blessing for us in the future.
Granted, the 60 day thing sucks. No doubt. But the American people, those who don't pay close attention, are sick and tired of the political hate commercials on TV before an election. They really wanted this. The "people" really did support it.

1,275 posted on 12/10/2003 12:41:47 PM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1263 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA
That means no more huge checks from wealthy donors, and no contributions from the treasuries of corporations or labor unions.

But neither will advocacy groups, like the NRA or the Brady Bunch for that matter and incumbents are still free to send out "Constituent letters", on your nickel. The incumbent re-election rate is already obcenely high, it will get higher, and they will listen less and less to anyone.

1,276 posted on 12/10/2003 12:42:08 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Go for it. And put me on the list. But ALL dust should settle, for at least a month or so, before action is taken. There is so much sturm and drang here today, I feel like I'm in a 10-hour Wagner opera.
1,277 posted on 12/10/2003 12:42:46 PM PST by John Robertson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion; MineralMan
MineralMan: Sometimes, principles are important. I expect our President to act on principles.

VRWC_minion: As long as you agree with those principles.

God save us from Presidents who "act on principles." I have no doubt that Bill Clinton 'acted on principles,' and look what it got us. Give me instead "truth in advertising:" the President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution (NOT his personal "principles"), and I expect him to do just that, or resign. IMHO, he can act on his "principles" when he returns to private life - while he's working for the people of the United States, he needs to defend the "supreme law of the land"...

;>)

1,278 posted on 12/10/2003 12:43:11 PM PST by Who is John Galt? ("The Constitution won't even make a good door stop. " - WhiskeyPapa, 10-08-2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1261 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
It may be a blessing for the Republican Party, but it is no blessing for the citizens whose freedoms have just been seriously eroded.
1,279 posted on 12/10/2003 12:44:14 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1275 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Look at Article I, Section 4 and tell me what that means.

Look at Amendment I, and tell me what that means. Congreff did pass this law, did they not? Amendments trump the original language if there is a conflict.

1,280 posted on 12/10/2003 12:44:15 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,241-1,2601,261-1,2801,281-1,300 ... 1,941-1,949 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson