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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[KDD]

Sink, I've used this metaphor countless times here, but it is so apt:

An elephant takes a crap on the forum. The dung beetles fly in from miles around to franticly roll the crap balls around and around and around.

Funny you should use the symbol of the GOP to illustrate your metaphor.

FWIW...The GOP elephant has taken a big crap on this country, and is using the constitution to wipe its butt with.

[ModernDayCato]

I'm not sure what else there is to say about CFR. It's a horrendous law; it weakens what the founders considered our most important fundamental right; GW Bush's signing of the bill was an act of cowardice, just as our party's passing it was.

As for the USSC, you can stick a fork in them.

[Revel]

"Who in the HELL do you think you are to question what I have or have not done about any legislation?"

I may have missed something, but I have never once seen you say anything criticle of GW or the Republicans. And I don't hate either. I think far less of the democrats for sure. It is just that they can do no wrong in your eyes, and you always defend them while cutting down anyone who has any other principles. That has always scared me and frustrated me.

[Howlin]

Right. I do believe you're scared. Really. You sound really scared.

[Sir_Ed]

"Not hard to pick out the liberals who have an R in front of there name is it ? They do what liberals do. Attact others with rediculous accusations while not being able to defend there postions."

Uh, I hope you're not calling me a liberal. I'm the furthest thing in the world from a liberal.

Read some of the hundreds of posts I've posted here over the years and get a clue...

Ed

[Diva Betsy Ross]

You are not alone.

[Revel]

I admitt that I don't even know some of those in your list. But Reagan is the only one of the names that I recognize that I can say was trully a conservative. IMHO

[Congressman Billybob]

FreeRepublic is not threatened by whatever we write and do here. The CFR law specifically "exempts" communications "on the Internet." That's for now. If Congress goes after us, the Court won't protect us. But for now, we're okay.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry," discussion thread. (ChronWatch used a longer title than my original.)

[Howlin]

But Reagan is the only one of the names that I recognize that I can say was trully a conservative.

Well now I know you're not anybody that is in any position to be telling anybody else what conservative views to hold.

[tpaine]

Actually Scalia is wrong and so are you two.

Marshall said that acts repugnant to our constitutuion are void.
IE, -- the simple words of the Constitution are supreme over ~everyone~ ; -- courts, legislatures, and the executive. BR> Marshall didn't 'make it up' he reasoned that:

"-- it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. --- --- Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." John Marshall, 1803

______________________________________

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

Actually, Mr. Justice Scalia is correct:
"[The Federal high court] made it up."
The Constitution nowhere delegates to the court the power to determine what the Constitution means.

Not at issue. -- Read Marbury, wherein Marshall points out exactly where the USSC gets jurisdiction to judge the constitutionality of ~new~ law. Like CFR.. -- Where they just erred.

"The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant." Melvin I. Urofsky, Marbury v. Madison - Background and Explanation But let's go to the "horse's mouth" – Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." "...(I)t is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated [the Constitution] as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."

The last line makes MY point, not yours.

Quite obviously, Mr. Justice Marshall wanted to have it both ways: he gave lip-service to the Constitution "as a rule for the government of courts," but also claimed (with no obvious constitutional basis) a power "to say what the law [including the Constitution] is."

Wrong. He only claimed the power on new legislation, made by Congress or by state or local governments.
The Constitution/BOR's is our supreme law, not to be violated by anyone. Marshall made that clear in M v M.

[CFC__VRWC]

Keep in touch and we'll get it done together.

Count me in - Hell, that only leaves 999 others to get on the same page. Even if all you need me to do is to chip in a few bucks for an ad, let me know and I'll bust out the checkbook. Any money or legwork that helps to get this monstrosity pitched into the street would be the best time or money I've ever spent.

[Revel]

"Uh, I hope you're not calling me a liberal. I'm the furthest thing in the world from a liberal. "


No Way! LOL.... I was refering to the person who was attacking you.

Work your way back through the posts till you come to:

"To: concerned about politics
"You probably never did in the first place. If one issue turns you into a Democrat, my guess is you were "born that way." LOL.""

I was reffering to that person. I loved your defense. It was Terrific! I was attacking the person who was attacking you.

I have nothing against you at all... Peace.

[onyx]

REGARDING Howlin's list:

Is Jesse Helms not conservative enough for you?

[ModernDayCato]

That's what I like to hear. I would imagine that only a token amount of $$$ is necessary, right Billybob?

[mykdsmom]

When the time comes.....I hope 1,000 or more of my closest friends will decide to stand with me.

Count me in John.

MKM

[Revel]

Thanks for your reply. I do respect your comments on this issue.

[Spiff]

Oh Heavens...don't do that. I like a lot of what Congressman Billybob says. But as I understand it he is [pro-abortion].. I need the peace of knowing that any new USSC apointie puts a high vaule on innocent life. It is a core issue with me.

Please, say it isn't so.

What say you, BillyBob? Is killing babies OK, protected by the Constitution, and in any way acceptable?

[hoagy62]

"...something MAJOR happening in the next 48 hours."

Something major what??? Coup? Invasion? Revolt? Terrorist attack?

[Who is John Galt?]

Not at issue.

That is precisely the issue. I invite you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation. Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it, James Madison couldn't find it - and I doubt Thomas Paine could have found it, either.

Have at it...

;>)

[Hoverbug]

Sure is easy to tell by reading this thread who the true conservatives are, vs who the the GOP hacks and operatives are.

Interestingly enough, the same "all vs nothing" "better than the alternative" "you're helping to put in a dem" arguments are being thrown around here as they were in the CA GOV race threads.

Wanna do something really interesting? Compare the names of those who think this CFR being upheld is no big thing to the names of those who wanted Arnold over a true conservative in the governor's race in CA.

Infiltration has been practiced and perfected by the left over for years. The media and education from elementary school to universities comes to mind.

Anybody think FR and the GOP is immune?

Hb