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.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm sorry to hear you can't find your original post!

[VRWC_minion]

So in your view, only government officials need read the Constitution. The Bill of Rights isn't so much a list of things guaranteed to the people and granted by the Creator, as it is some suggestions to the government as to how they should act. Suggestions which may be disregarded at anytime, assuming the government says so.

Okie dokie. So you disagree that CFR is constitutional. Please explain by what authority unde the constitution you have to overturn this law.

Again, lots of folks on this thread who are screaming "unconstitutional" at the top of their lungs don't have a clue what the word means. Hint: It isn't what you say it means.

[Spiff]

The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted. This misinterpretation flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers and is the root cause of the FedGov's involvement in just about every aspect of our lives. You want to stuff the unfettered government genie back in its bottle? Amend or repeal the 14th.

[El Gato]

What a delicious possibility.

Senator KerryKetchup has already asked the Federal Election Commission to block this possibilty.

[Who is John Galt?]

Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.

“Not at issue.” We were discussing ‘final and exclusive constitutional review:’ what Mr, Justice Scalia refers to as “the last word on what the Constitution means.” You claim that Mr. Justice Scalia is wrong, and leap to the conclusion that “judicial Power” is equivalent to ‘final and exclusive constitutional review.’ You have yet to prove either point.

;>)

Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.

That hardly proves Mr. Justice Scalia wrong – in fact, “the last line makes MY point, not yours.”

;>)

Sorry sport. You asked me to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power.

Wrong – I never asked you “to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power.” But your attempt to swap horses in mid-stream is quite entertaining.!

;>)

Now you want to play word games about who's making circular arguments. -- You are, imo.

LOL! We’ve been discussing “the last word on what the Constitution means.” Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson suggested that “the last word on what the Constitution means” resided with the individual States, not the federal judiciary. Now, it may be news to you, but a “State” is not a ‘federal court.’ Your attempt to equate ‘final and exclusive constitutional review’ with ‘”judicial power” is nothing but a “word game,” and (given your complete lack of substantiation) resembles a circular argument.

;>)

There is no such thing as "the power of exclusive and final constitutional review"..

Then why do you claim it resides with “we the people?” How can “-- 'we the people' have final say” if a “final say” regarding the meaning of the Constitution doesn’t exist?

“Weird game you play. “

;>)

WIJG: You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,' and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.'

tp: No, I did not. You lie.

Mr. Justice Scalia stated:

”The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."

You REPEATEDLY claimed he was “wrong.” Tell us:

Does “the Constitution of the United States say that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means?” If not, then Mr. Justice Scalia was right, not “wrong” as you claimed.

Does the Constitution say “that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution?” If not, then Mr. Justice Scalia was right, not “wrong” as you claimed.

Perhaps you’ve changed your mind...

WIJG: Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...

tp: Never said it was. Do you enjoy making up such tales?

“Tales?” Now you’re hurting my feelings! Let’s take a look at my post, and your response:

WIJG: 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...

tp: (“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.. “) Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that? <
Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803

I asked you to “cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation,” noting that “Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it, [and] James Madison couldn't find it.” You responded with “a bit of what Marshall said in 1803.” How nice - you certainly appear to be equating “a bit of what Marshall said” with “the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation.”

‘You really should study my posts, if you intend to dispute them.’

;>)

WIJG: I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court.

tp: That is not my view. You're getting daffy.

Apparently you have changed your mind – you now appear to be claiming that you agree with Mr. Justice Scalia. Congratulations...

I suggest you write to some law review, outlining ~your~ 'logic' refuting Marshalls. -- Be sure to include lots of LOL's & smiley

Darn – I was hoping you could point out any 'holes' in my reasoning (I wouldn’t want to submit a flawed argument to “some law review,” now would I? ;>). Obviously you couldn’t find any.

(LOL! Here, tp, have another “smiley”... ;>)

[tpaine]

Congressman Billybob:

It is up to every state to determine its own criminal law.

But said criminal laws must comply with our BORs individual protections.

So if North Carolina, New York, and Nevada reach different decisions on the subject, that is permitted by the US Constitution.

Simply not true according to the plain words of the 14th.

I know that answer will displease some people, perhaps even both of you. But I always start any discussion of political basics with the plain language -- or lack of language -- of the Constitution on that subject. John / Billybob 1,605

The USSC let stand a peculiar 'criminal law' about assault weapons in CA last week, Billy. -- Do you support CA's 'right' to prohibit such weapons?

______________________________________

Spiff wrote:
The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted. This misinterpretation flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers and is the root cause of the FedGov's involvement in just about every aspect of our lives. You want to stuff the unfettered government genie back in its bottle? Amend or repeal the 14th.

___________________________________

Spiff wrote: The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted.

How so? Its language is clear. States cannot infringe on our individual libertes.

This misinterpretation flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers and is the root cause of the FedGov's involvement in just about every aspect of our lives. You want to stuff the unfettered government genie back in its bottle? Amend or repeal the 14th.

The USSC let stand a peculiar 'criminal law' about assault weapons in CA last week, Spiff. -- Do you support CA's 'right' to prohibit such weapons?

[JasonC]

Brilliant...

[Sir_Ed]

"I am looking forward to hearing what CB has to say because some of what I have read on here is mind boggling. Still trying to figure out how MY own PERSONAL free speech has been infringed."

You will still be able to tell your neighbors how you feel. You'll still be able to write a letter to the editor and if you are rich as Croesus or Soros you can run ads to your heart's content.

What you will NOT be able to do, however, is pool your money with a group of like-minded people, like Free Republic, the NRA or Right to Life, and take out a radio or TV ad 60 days before an election.

And that, to me, rips the heart right out of the Constitution.

For, if we cannot join together in like-minded associations to express and publish our opinions on political candidates and races, we have ipso facto LOST our freedom of speech, letters to the editor and jawboning the neighbors at the local feedstore notwithstanding.

The incumbents won't give a hoot that you write letters or tell your neighbors that Hitlery is a Marxist, Dr. Dean was a ob/gyn at a Planned Barrenhood clinic or Patty Murray supports OBL.

Shoot, the NKVD didn't really mind the Babushkas grousing about the lack of potatoes or vodka. It's ORGANIZED opposition they dread, and this abomination gives incumbents the right to JAIL people if they join together and run ads opposing them.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are not all weeping for this nation.

This day, to me, is as bad as January 21, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and it will have the same long-term impact.

The body political voice will be stymied, free political discourse will be muzzled and believe me, it's just a short matter of time 'til we see mini-McCain-Feingolds in all the different states, outlawing political free speech 60 days before a state election. Or maybe they will go 120 days before an election, or just ban political opposition from groups outright.

I also think it's but a slippery slope to extending this disgusting anti-American act to talk radio and the internet...the handwritintg's on the wall.

That's why I cannot in good conscience vote for President Bush again. The political climate has undergone a sea change, we have lost the second-most vital of our freedoms...the right of free speech to criticize our government and I, for one, cannot vote for the man by whose hand this came about.

It's like Congressman Janklow. He was a good man, a good governor, a good representative, but he killed a man, and now has to accept the consequences.

You can no longer vote for him, no matter how much your heart wishes you to, because he took himself outside the pale and what he did demands that he resign his office and be sentenced.

By the same token President Bush, by not vetoing that abomination, killed the Constitution.

He killed it in the only way that matters...he took from us the right to collectively join together and criticize our government. In the long run that decision may even be worse than the decision to take our guns, if that ever happens.

And because he did that to the Constitution, I can never again vote for him. To my mind, it was as serious as what Representative Janklow did, and as such, it HAS to have consequences.

That is why I cannot and will not ever again vote for George Bush.

Ed

[tpaine]

The key to the locker containing the strawberries is missing.
Who is John Galt? will now prove, beyond all doubt, that it all started with the M v M decision in 1803.

Ships company, -- dismissed...

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, there was one instance of (apparent) corruption on the Court. After the Senate refused to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice, as sought by President Johnson, it came out that Justice Fortas was receiving an outside income on retainer from an organization that had interests in issues before the Court. Fortas then resigned from the Court itself.

John / Billybob

[Spiff]

Do you support CA's 'right' to prohibit such weapons?

I do no support the infringement of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether that infringement is committed by the FedGov or the state of California. However, as long as California has a Republican form of government and the California constitution permits it, and barring the traditional misinterpretation of the 14th, the California state legislature can prohibit weapons and the U.S. Constitution allows it and the 10th Amendment affirms this fact. The BOR clearly placed its limits upon the FedGov (as in, "Congress shall make no law...) as the Constitution was defining the FedGov, the several States pre-existing. Until the 14th began to be misinterpreted we had a federal form of government. Since then it has almost entirely metamorphed into a national government. Sad.

[Zack Nguyen]

Wow. That would be incredibly effective. I mean it. I wsh their was something I could do to help.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Wow, what a post.

[Paul C. Jesup]

O_O

[Congressman Billybob]

The issue of gun ownership is in a different category than general criminal law. The later was left to the states by the Constitution. The former, however, has a specific Amendment, the 2nd, put in the Bill of Rights to protect it.

The Supreme Court has never properly recognized or honestly enforced the 2nd Amendment, but it is still there. And in line with my general views on constitutional subjects, when the Constitution has spoken it is the business of all Americans -- including the Justices on the Supreme Court -- to enforce it. If they cannot do that, then it is their business to resign from the Court.

I hope that answers your question.

John / Billybob

[El Gato]

The NRA can run an ad on the 2nd Amendment.

As long as they don't mention that Congressman GunGrabber or Senator Senile doesn't support it. Sure the NRA and affiliates will still be able to put out to their membership the cannidate ratings (which BTW, also seem biased towared incumbents), but that will only reach a small fraction of the membership who read that part of the magazine or website, which in turn is a small fraction of the electorate. Meanwhile AOLTIMEWARNERCNN can say pretty much whatever they want, obscuring a canidates anti second amendment record, or trumpeting it, as seems appropriate to get them elected.

[Congressman Billybob]

I am willing to put my life, liberty and sacred honor (to use an old but good phrase) on the line for the Constitution, even if five Justices of the Supreme Court are willing to wipe their feet on it. Anyone who agrees with me is welcome to make the same commitment.

John / Billybob

[Bush2004]

Well, Bush didn't actually kill anybody now did he?

The irony in this story is that it hurts neither the RNC nor the DNC but the Constitution Party, Greens, and others (apparently of your mind) who can't otherwise get an invitation to the big dance.

Either play by the new rules or get beat. That about sums it up.

[tpaine]

The USSC let stand a peculiar 'criminal law' about assault weapons in CA last week, Spiff. -- Do you support CA's 'right' to prohibit such weapons?

I do no support the infringement of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether that infringement is committed by the FedGov or the state of California. However, as long as California has a Republican form of government and the California constitution permits it, and barring the traditional misinterpretation of the 14th, the California state legislature can prohibit weapons and the U.S. Constitution allows it and the 10th Amendment affirms this fact.

Thank you. You've just joined a couple of dozen very confused FReekers who claim to support our RKBA's while admitting that states & localities can prohibit guns.

The BOR clearly placed its limits upon the FedGov (as in, "Congress shall make no law...) as the Constitution was defining the FedGov, the several States pre-existing.

A US citizen had a RKBA's in a territory, but lost his right if a new state so decreed? You sure?

Until the 14th began to be misinterpreted we had a federal form of government. Since then it has almost entirely metamorphed into a national government. Sad.

Yep, I find such reasoning more that sad.

[Congressman Billybob]

My plan has two parts to it. The first is that one of the 1,000 or so signers on the in-your-face ad has to be a candidate for House, Senate or President. That step guarantees that the station MUST run it, and cannot censor it.

But the other step is also essential. Create a new group, say "Citizens for Free Speech about Politicians." Incorporate that group, so there is zero question that the CFR law would forbid THAT group from broadcasting an ad about its political opinions. (The candidate would be a willing, deliberate part of that group.)

With both conditions met, run the ad and dare the authorities to come after all 1,000 people. Odds are, they would come after the candidate only. Heck, that's like going on point. Somebody's got to do it, or the unit doesn't go anywhere or accomplish anything.

Does that answer your question?

Congressman Billybob

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