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.

[aristeides]

Figures, that somebody who defends this CFR monstrosity appears to believe the Alien and Sedition Acts were also constitutional.

[El Gato]

But until laws were enacted and the Constitution was amended, it WAS Constitutional.

It was Consitutional until the Constitution was ammended. The Emancipation Proclemation was an illegal taking of property, without compensation. The constitutional thing to do would have been to in effect buy the slaves and set them free, and then proceed to an amendment. Oh the amendment could have come first, and then the problem of an unconsitutional taking would have been avoided, because that amendment would have in a very limited way, overuled the 5th amendment's protection against uncompensated takings.

The only way to make something Constitutionial, that's not, or not that is, is to change the Constitution. Abortion is constitutional, but the question was were state laws banning it constitutional. The court ruled they were not, but the Constitution hadn't changed, to make them not consitutional, only the interpretation changed. The same with same sex sodomy laws, and a host of other things.

The Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abriding freedom of speech, or of the press. This is an abridgement, Congress passed it, ergo it's UnConstitutional, and 300 pages of legalese isn't going to change that. The fact that it took 300 pages is a clue to the fact that they were pi$$ing in our boots and telling us it was raining. The syllabus (a clerks summary of the decision) went to 18 or 19 pages. Although to be fair that encompased not just the ad restrictions, but also the money restrictions and a couple of other issues.

Sure freedom of speech is not absolute, but until today "no prior restraint" was the rule, now it's shutupandtakeit. The same rule, "no prior restraint" applies or should apply to the right to keep and bear arms. Misuse of arms, or speech, can be punished, but prior restraint is not allowed, or didn't used to be, now it is. This law, and most gun control laws, are equivalent to binding your hands and taping over your mouth as you enter a theater, because you might yell fire when there was no fire. (Of course you also couldn't yell fire if there was one, a point which also applies to both the CFR law and gun control laws)

[FirstPrinciple]

Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. I guess gone are those principles.

[A Navy Vet]

Well, well. Looks like it's time to finally make that jump to the Constitution Party - Their Platform

[Looking for Diogenes]

Speech on TV or radio is still speech.

And is text on the screen still a printing press? Is that the clear, uninterpreted meaning of the founding fathers?

I still think you're trying to have it both ways - using interpretation when you feel they are needed, but opposing interpretation when it is done by the Supreme Court.

[Looking for Diogenes]

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 necessary. The plain language of the Constitution is still pretty darn contemporary. We aren't translating this stuff from Latin.

I have operated a printing press, spoken into a microphone to broadcast over radio waves, and even used a computer to communicate by internet. I know the differences between a press, a radio, and a computer. Those differences are substantial and obvious to most people who look at them. The radio waves are not the "press." The internet is not the "press." The press is the press.

The founding fathers did not write "media" anywhere in the Constitution. It is the interpretation of the document which gets us from "the press" to "the media." An interpretation endorsed by the Supreme Court and apparently by you as well. But still an interpretation.

[Orwellian]

228 years ago a similar debate was held. On one side seemed to be moderation and reason. On the other there seemed to be only fiery rhetoric and blind passion. One of those speakers said something better than I ever could so I will borrow his words here.

Mr. President: no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country.
For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery;
and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.
It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.
Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly things.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.
Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience.
I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.
And judging by the past I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?


Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition compares with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.
Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?

Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love?


Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?
Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it?
Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other.
They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.
And what have we to oppose them?

Shall we try argument?

Sir, we have been trying that for the past ten years.
Have we anything new to offer on the subject?
Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable;
but it has all been in vain.
Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication?
What terms shall we find which have not already been exhausted?


Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.
We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated;
we have prostrated ourselves before the throne,
and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament.


Our petitions have been slighted;
our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult;
our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free --
if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending --
if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged,
and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!

I repeat it, sir, we must fight!
An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!


They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary.


But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or next year?
Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?


Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?. . .

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?


Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.


Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.


The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave . . .

Besides, sir, we have no election.
If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!
Our chains are forged!
Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!
The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat, sir, let it come!


It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.
Gentlemen may cry peace, peace -- but there is no peace!
The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!

Our brethren are already in the field!

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?


Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!


I know not what course others may take; but as for me,
give me liberty or give me death!!! Patrick Henry, 1775

You fine people counsel restraint and incremental improvement. Admittedly that counsel would appear to be the course of wisdom, but I ask you what has that approach achieved? The party that we support has betrayed us to political expedience. You say better the lesser of two evils and we can hope for a better position tomorrow. I say will you wait until the collar is around your throat and the shackles clanking at your limbs before you awaken to the danger?

If you admit the law is unjust and that those we support had a hand in its creation how can you still support them? This is no insignificant issue but the very bedrock of the republic! They have denied the existence of a right granted to us by Almighty God and defended by the blood and sacrifice of good men. What in your experience or study of history have you learned that would make you believe they will not do so again?

You are right in that I have no solution at this time. At least not one that my conscience finds acceptable. I know that on September 1997 I took on oath to support and defend the document which is now under blatant attack. As for now nonviolent recourses are still open to us and I intend to make use of them. I am a young man still in my twenties. I have worn a green uniform with pride and I hope to do the same with a blue uniform in the future. God willing I have a long and fruitful life ahead but if the choice is slow descent into slavery, rapid descent into tyranny, or death my choice is already made. I have lived free and refuse to live any other way.

As you can tell I am very passionate about the issue. I have tried to offer a serious and heart felt reply. I ask only for the same. If you see cause for hope in our current political servants please share it with me for I see none.

[Roscoe]

Opinion of SCALIA, J.

Because these cases are of such extraordinary importance, I cannot avoid adding to the many writings a few words of my own.

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of soft money to fund issue ads that incumbents find so offensive.

[The_Eaglet]

Hey, how come you forgot Sarbanes-Oaxley. Bush gleefully signed that law as well.

What was that about?

[Dead Corpse]

Those differences are substantial and obvious to most people who look at them.

"The Press" are historically anyone spreading the news and expressing thier views of government. Not the quasi-licensed professional class we have today.

And no, it does not matter what media you disseminate information across. Print, soapbox, internet chat room, or the airwaves/cable lines. Your arguemtn is as vacant as claiming that somehow only black powder muskets are covered by the SEcond Amendment. A proven logical falsehood.

"Freedom of speech, and of the press..." does not mean you are free to run a printing press any more than "freedom of religion" means only Catholicism.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Scalia is simply incorrect about this. All that is necessary for critics is that they form a PAC to do it. Then they can say whatever they wish.

Now it is true that this might not be want they wish to do but nothing stops them from doing it. And no one is prevented from criticizing the government at all. The government never is a candidate in an election anyway.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Please spare me the arrogation of Patrick Henry to this case. It is a trivial matter and no one is stopped from doing anything or saying anything. The Court found that prohibitions on soft money expenditures at certain times was not unconstitutional. That is all. Other features of this law may be before it in the future since it ruled only on the ban on mass communications ads.

All that need be done is to form PACs and anyone can say anything at any time.

To pretend that Henry's words are applicable to this indicates a complete lack of perspective as to the Law's actual meaning and impact.

There are many ways to get around its strictures. Only the terminally stupid will be frustrated by it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Formation of or contribution to a PAC allows you to do just what you wish. This law has no impact upon that. Nor has it changed ANYTHING about ads in the Press.

Listening to a CSPAN debate between the lawyers for the case was very instructive. It is unfortunate that those who are panicing over this ruling didn't see it since it showed that most of their fears are TOTALLY groundless.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Election campaigns are certainly part of an election. There is no such thing as a campaign WITHOUT an election.

The rest of your statement I agree with. There should be NO official recognition of parties by the government.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The FACT is no one WAS "thrust upon" the state of North CArolina. North CArolinians would not tolerate such a thing.

In the case of Liddy it was a foregone conclusion she would win her primary since she was a major national figure BEFORE the election. This was not a case of the evil RNC and the sinister Rove working some sort of Black Magic to elect her.
They didn't have to.

People early on recognized that she would win and supported her with help and money. There is not one thing strange or unusual about that. Nor was her opponent more qualified. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean she was not highly qualified, she obviously was and had been involved in National politics for decades. In fact, she was one of the MOST qualified candidates for the Senate who ran that year.
She is a polished speaker and easily moves among the people to get her message across. Plus she has an engaging personality and people like her.

Name recognition and her personality won for her not the malevolent moves of Rove.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course it cannot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nullification never was "in vogue" nor could it ever have had ANY legal impact. The resolutions were just blowing smoke and represent stains upon the honor and integrity of Madison and Jefferson. They are the low points of their distinguished careers and were only done under the cover of anonymity since they were so absurd.

Why don't you ask Andy Jackson about nullification and how he would treat anyone foolish enough to try it?

I have only a vague recollection of the PA episode but doubt if it occurred as you describe.

A Law of the Land means nullification is illegal and unconstitutional on its face. NO other states accepted the Va. or Ky. Resolutions because they were so stupid.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My only reply to 160 would be that Freedom of Speech is not an absolute and is legally circumvented in many instances.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is true but as early as 1793 it had ruled on the constitutionality of other laws though.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Election campaigns are part of an election. They do not exist without an election; they stop after an election; they come into existance only when an election is scheduled.

They are not identical with an election but are a major component of it. I might wish it to be otherwise but it isn't.