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.
I won't participate in that. Yet, I do, and have always, questioned why Bush would have signed this into law....it has always displeased me greatly (an understatement). I think he was wrong to do so. But I would like to fully understand the bill before I make any other condemnations.
Revel: Revel, Since Mar 8, 1998
Howlin, Since Jul 1, 1999
According to my math...that is 1 year and 4 months.
Howlin: I guess you aren't quite as brillant as you pretend to be.
Why? Because he was off by one week?
Republicans in Congress and the White House could have prevented this bill from becoming law. Any work they're doing now is too little, too late. They made this work for themselves.
You can gamble on some things, but the Constitution is not one of them. I warned back when the bill was passed that this was a foolish and dangerous risk, yet was shouted down because of those warnings. Hopefully everyone will learn from this debacle.
Thanks for making my point. In your opinion only those with "authority" are qualified to determine what is constitutional. There's no reason for anyone not in "authority" to familiarize themselves with the document, because according to you they'd be incapable of interpreting it correctly.
It's a wonder the Founders created it at all, if you're to be believed. I'll let it to third-parties on this thread to decide who makes more sense here.
Do you see anything in the Second Amendment about semiautomatic weapons? Of course not, because technology has advanced since the time of the Founders. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak by whatever media is available to the speaker, so long as it doesn't result in the proverbial fist hitting a person's nose.
Surely you realize that the Constitution isn't a laundry list of rights, and that anything that doesn't appear is prohibited? Under your theory the internet is not protected by the Constitution.
I have to say that I'm only amused because I think the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot on this one at least temporarily, On a more serious note I think that the infringement on rights is disgusting but ironically it is going to make my job easier and will ultimately be "gotten around " give the strategists a couple of weeks they'll find loopholes...
Be sure and tell that to your new Queen! I'm sure she'll agree with you completely (as long as those are HER principles). That kind of an idiotic response says it all.
Well, then go right ahead, and vote your convictions! Better practice up on your bowing and scraping just in case.
And it gives authority to our elected officials to write laws and it gives authority to the SC to override them if it thinks they are unconstitutional. That is what the document says. Do you wish to ignore all the parts except for the BOR ?
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, stands for the basic idea that Congress has the power to close loopholes as the political system creates new ones. It means that American democracy is not defenseless and that purchasing access to the powerful is not protected by the right of free speech.
"Purchasing access to the powerful is not protected". Who else could they be referring to but themselves and the rest of big media?
And that, to me, rips the heart right out of the Constitution....
Incumbents are very aware of the power in numbers. What better way to keep us isolated and silent? If I understand it correctly, broadcast ads can be aired if the candidate appears in the ad. Stop & think...this requirement is nothing more than requiring government's permission to have my voice heard prior to an election.
We join groups of like minded people for one reason....to have our collective voices heard. We cannot, without fear of prosecution of the federal government, have our voices heard via broadcast media prior to an election.
What happens to Talk Radio? The conservatives rule the roost. Prior to an election I expect the dems to be crying foul when issues and names are discussed in detail by conservative guests.
The toe is in the door. How long before a case is before SCOTUS arguing Talk Radio is nothing more than an election ad in disguise? Will we see the day SCOTUS rules talk radio must close down prior to the election?
Anything can happen.
I agree with Timesink. Congress needs a clear message on this regardless of the party makeup.
Maybe if we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President??? /sarcasm
Don't blame me, I voted for Howard Phillips!
Of course you mislead. A knowledgable voter is still a minimum requirement for this republic to work. However, that doesn't change the fact that according to the Constitution you and I have delegated the authority to make laws to our elected reps.
Sorry to be the one to clue you into the real world.
That's not the question at hand. We need to determine, have we delegated the power to interpret the Constitution? You submit we have, I say anyone is capable of making the distinction regardless of what some politicians say.
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.