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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[VRWC_minion]

We are each free to interpret it its just that on one cares what we think.

[Howlin]

No, because Howlin isn't my original screen name.

[freedomcrusader]

The Constitution would be meaningless if they upheld that ban.

Well, it's meaningless. Like you, it took this ruling to finally convince me.

[jaugust]

You are right in one regard and that it doesn't restrict an individual's right to speak. But the key operative in this whole mess is "Congress shall make no law" and the word "abridging". Has Congress made a law? YES! Is it a law which abridges? YES! It doesn't matter by which vehicle the law applies, media or soap box, the fact of the matter is is that Congress passed a law that it had no right to. Merriam-Webster defines abridge as: 1 a: archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH

[The_Eaglet]

Sean and Rush have an embedded interest in fighting this, as their careers may unfortunately be impacted by it to some degree, so it's in their interest to be a bit more shrill than usual.

I heard Sean's concerns (and Mike Reagan's) about this usurpation of free speech. I am glad Rush is siding with the 1st Amendment on this, too. My respect for all of them just wen t up a notch.

[The_Eaglet]

Everything that I pasted below, I agree with, and I could add a few more.

increasingly long list of reasons to be most disappointed with Bush:

Here they are:

# Support for the reverse discrimination of Title IX law.
# Submission of the silly Global Warming paper to the UN.
# Advancement of the no-drilling-for-oil-in-Florida idea, either
off the coast or in the Everglades.
# Passage of the bloated Farm Bill.
# The No-Guns-In-The-Cockpit policy.
# Campain Finance Reform.
# The Education Bill.
# Food Stamps for Illegal Immigrants.
# Unemployment Extension.
# Not fighting for Judge Pickering.
# Nor fighting for New Jersey and Virginia Governors. # Dictation to Israel a reversal of the Bush Doctrine on Terrorism
# Federalizing airport security workers.
# Reversal of welfare reform.
# Open medical records.
# Failing to take on Democrats regarding all of his judicial appointments.
# Advancing and signing the bloated Medicare Bill.
# Failing to VETO the Campaign Finance (McCain-Feingold) Bill as he
indicated during the campaign. Now, look at what we
have!
I'll never vote Democratic, but I've got to say, I'm not sure we are a lot better off than had Gore been elected. A Democratic agenda is being advanced at a stunning rate under the name of Compassionate Conservatism. It is now clear Compassionate Conservatism is not Conservatism at all, it is Centrist Liberalism.
...
What ever happened to "limited government" and getting rid of "big government" and "supporting and defending the Constitution?"
...
"Is there anybody out there?"

Yes. His name is Michael Peroutka. He is running for the Constitution Party nomination and believes that the federal government should be limited by the Constitution (what a concept)!

[The_Eaglet]

You mean those who actually love there country and Constitution. I don't think people hate Bush per say. I know I don't. I just hate his socialism and his lack of respect for the Constitution

I agree. I pray for President Bush and am grateful for the few things he has done right, such beginning to reduce the income tax. It's not enough, but it is a start.

[The_Eaglet]

It seems that ever since Rush came out of rehab and stated that he had to stop trying to please others- he seems to have returned to his old self. The Rush I loved.

Has he cleaned up his language? If he's like Rush of 10 years ago I might listen to him more. I was listening to him one day a few months ago and found myself so embarrassed with some crude language that I had to turn off the radio. Is he an "Excellent role model for the yutes of America" again?

[The_Eaglet]

The US Constitution is absolutely silent on the subject of abortion.

Amendment V addresses the right to life: "No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Until the a child (before or after birth) is able to testify in court, their lives are protected.

[The_Eaglet]

As posted earlier, I am interested in Michael Peroutka as a constitutional conservative to the incumbent.

[Looking for Diogenes]

jaugust: It doesn't matter by whiich vehicle the law applies, media or soap box, the fact of the matter is is that Congress passed a law that it had no right to. Merriam-Webster defines abridge as: 1 a: archaic : DEPRIVE...

The question is not the definition of "abridge" but the definition of the word "speech." In the 18th Century, speech meant oral communication. It is only by interpretation that we equate "speech" with the broader "communication in any form."

NittanyLion:Do you see anything in the Second Amendment about semiautomatic weapons?

"Arms" is very inclusive. Frankly, I'd say that term includes all armament. No redefinition of the word is necessary. If they had used the word "muskets" instead your point would be valid.

NittanyLion: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.

No. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. It neither mentions other "media" nor does it limit inflammatory language. All the rest you mention is interpretation. Now I see nothing wrong with courts legitimately interpreting the Constitution. I posted this in response to El Gato's contention that the Constitution's plain language should be followed with no court interpretation. You can't have it both ways. Either the courts are empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution, or we stick with the plain 18th Century language as written.

El Gato: The Constitution says what it says, and means what it meant when passed, or when amended as applicable. The Constitution alone is the standard, not what some politicians or political appointees say about it. It's not as if it is some big theoretical exposition, written in impenetrable legalese. It's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous.

[Dead Corpse]

You might want to revisit the text of the First. It mentions press as well. A free press these days incorperates radio, internet, and broadcast media. These are all "media" for the press. For more clarification, see the definition for the term "media" or "medium".

No interpretation necssary. The plain language of the Constitution is still pretty darn contemporary. We aren't translating this stuff from Latin.

[NittanyLion]

No. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. It neither mentions other "media" nor does it limit inflammatory language.

Absent a specific limitation of a medium, the only valid conclusion is that all media are allowed. No interpretation necessary.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Manner does NOT include times and places which you would know if you were to read Article I, Section 4. They are listed separately.

There is plenty of authority within the Constitution for the fedgov to do most of what it wishes, dependence upon the "general welfare" clause need not be resorted to. Since you apparently need an explanation of its powers read Hamilton's essay on the constitutionality of the National Bank. That makes it clear as a bell but if you need further assistance I'll be glad to help.

This law specifies only that "soft money" cannot fund ads within the 60 day period. Those SAME, EXACT ads can easily be run using the "hard money" funds. Of course, if you are too stupid to plan a campaign knowing this you are too stupid to get elected anyway. Nor is this the first SC ruling to uphold limits on campaign spending/fund raising.

It is not so much the RATmedia which pushed this law but overwhelming support from the mass of the American people.
Only after its passage did the RATS realize how much of a problem they had caused for themselves.

[justshutupandtakeit]

A campaign is clearly part of an election. They only exist in conjunction with the run-up to an election. The full term is "election CAMPAIGN."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks for the clarification.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since you can't handle examples of Congress abridging free speech you throw an inappropriate Latin phrase at it but that does NOT change the fact that Congress does have the power in certain instances to curtail political speech.

CFR stifles the free speech of no politician clever enough to tie his own shoes since hard money can pay for ANY ad with ANY content at ANY time. Only the stupid will have their free speech curtailed by this toothless paper tiger of a law.

Look up irony in a decent dictionary and you might begin to understand my name though I doubt it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I only respond to what you say not what you think you know.

Congress changed nothing with this law but the ability of candidates to use attack ads funded through soft money within the 30/60 day period prior to the election. The SAME ad with the SAME content can be run at ANY time if funded through hard money. This is a trivial change and only the stupidest candidates will be hurt by it. Certainly it is nothing to justify the hysteria generated here by the perpetually outraged.

Congress has abridged free speech in many cases and that is why you don't see Al Queda recruiters openly recruiting members in the USA and why the German Bund was destroyed during WWII. YOu don't seriously think this was un-constitutional do you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While the A&S laws were the proximate cause of the Federalist demise it was a far more complex phenomenon. There were several contributing forces including: Hamilton's attack on Adams through a private letter Burr had pilfered from the mails and circulated widely; Hamilton's self-destruction over the Reynolds affair; colossal stupidity of the electorate swinging to the Left; growth of the new states without a large federalist presence; a decade of RATmedia lies which came to be accepted as truth; blind acceptance of Jeffersonian duplicity and hypocrisy was also important.

While no supporter of this law I believe it is insignificant and certainly not "dereliction of duty" for Bush to have signed it.

While the branches of government are equal some are more equal than the rest and the Founders clearly meant to make the Legislative the most powerful. And Congress has the power under the Exceptions Clause to direct the Court that it cannot rule in certain cases. However, the branches do NOT have an equal power in interpreting the constitution THAT is left to the Court.

Nothing should happen to Bush for signing this toothless law. It simply will change little for intelligent politicians.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have seen others call this an incumbent protection act but how that could be I can't fathom. Since the ad ban limits ads paid for with soft money and incumbents have most of that how does this ban help them? In fact, it appears to me that it HURTS them since they are generally the ones with the money to fund these ads NOT their challengers.