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

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

Well, the first amdnement is absolute when it comes to political speech whetehr you want to believe it or not and to say I'm being hyperbolic is stupid, idiotic and foolish.

And regardless of whether you're playing devil's advocate or not or trying to present your misrepresentation, it's not working.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to give people the power to limit goverment, not the other way around. This clearly what the founding fathers intended whether you like it being said or not.

It is YOU who is making the false assumptions, NOT ME.Your attempt to present false and bogus information is simply not going over and it's working . People just don't believe you. I don't believe you and neither do all of the many other freepers.

I've researched all of this stuff and I know a lot more than you do It's YOU WHO IS LYING, NOT ME.

You're telling me that Liddy had NO challengers in the Republican primary? That is not what I do remember.

Oh so you receive local NC news in your state as well? What cable company do you have? There were names on the ballot in the primaries but months before the election, the local news was only reporting a race on the Democratic side. It was a forgone conclusion that this woman was going to be the Republican candidate because the RNC was already paying for her ads

What about this do you not understand? Do you think that an individual is so concerned about a state that he or she would just up and run for an election in a state they hadn't visited in over 30 years? Worse yet, in the case of Hillary, hadn't lived in until needing a place to run for office? If Hillary was so concerned why didn't she run in Arkansas, where she lived before the race? How about Dole? Why didn't she run where her husband had been Senator for so many years? The fact is that the national committees are running the Senate races and using the valid representation of the citizens of the respective states as some power game to gain the upper hand in national politics

I am not a great worrier about the power of soft money but that appears to be the concern of the CFR. This means I don't have to backtrack on Liddy since I don't think that was the source of her victory. She won principlely imho because of name recognition and personality.

I must admit I pretty much agree with Keyes on that, it is inconceivable to me that the Founders would approve of Billionaires having the power to sway the votes of millions.
They would believe that such power in the Plutocracy would be the very essence of Tyranny. We must recall that even the very richest of that day had little cash almost all their wealth was in land, slaves or other illiquid assets. Thus, such a worry did not exist.

Nothing would prevent those citizens from doing what you what if they form a PAC to do it. Or if they fund it with hard money (no that doesn't mean the CFR boosts gold bugs.)

Well, Keyes was for unrestricted, fully-disclosed donations from individuals only. I do not agree that full-disclosure eliminates the influence of individuals.

If soft money isn't that big a problem, then restricting political speech is unnecessary and unwarranted.

If you only mean to point out that the consequences of the law are not as dire as many believe, that is one thing. It is another entirely to argue that soft money is a threat to democracy, restrictions on political speech are therefore warranted, and based on all the so-called "loopholes" that are becoming apparent, more restriction will be necessary in the future.

The majority in the decision practically begged Congress for more when it said: "...we are under no illusion that BCRA will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

j… : The SEdition Acts constitutionality was never challenged so the Court never ruled on its constitutionality. Now did it?

WIJG: What are you suggesting - that no law can be unconstitutional unless the high court rules it to be so?

j… : Of course it cannot.

So, if the Democrats capture both houses of Congress, pass a law (by a veto-proof margin ;>) declaring Hillary ‘Queen for Life,’ and the high court refuses to consider the case, you would insist that the law (and the Clinton monarchy it established ;>) was constitutional?

Or would you insist that the transition from constitutional republic to monarchy was just not unconstitutional?

(aristeides - I think our friend has just earned a new nickname. How about ‘Queen Hillary’s Court Jester?’ ;>)

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

Then your only reply is completely irrelevant. The 1st Amendment says nothing about an “absolute” right to “Freedom of Speech.”

Since you apparently have managed to avoid reading the amendment in question, allow me to quote the relevant language:

”Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

If you claim the 30/60-day ban on political ads is constitutional, you have three choices:

1) prove that Congress did not pass the ban ( “Congress shall make no law”); or

2) prove that the ban does not ‘reduce or lessen in duration’ (‘abridge’) “the freedom of speech, or of the press;” or

3) prove that public advertisements concerning elections do not qualify as “freedom of speech, or of the press.”

What’s your answer, funny boy?

(You're a 'seminar caller,' right? No one but a liberal could possibly be as obtuse as you appear to be... ;>)

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.

1. But there could concievably be an election without a campaign. It's happened. 2. If the government didn't recognize the parties, then the entire CFR bill really would make no sense whatsoever. Not that it does anyway, from a Constitutional perspective at least.

If you wish to ignore our constitutional gov't be my guest. The law is the law even if you don't like it.

Where did I say I wished to ingore out consitutional gov't? I just want the government to stop doing so.

The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The Constitution, not Presidents, not Congressmen, and not Judges or Justices.

And is text on the screen still a printing press?

The Constitution doesn't mention printing, only "the press". This is probably one area that does require some "interpretation, although not much. There is no practical, other than speed and cost of distribution, between the printed word and it's electronic equivalent. A court could disagree, but not reasonably. But clearly speech is still speech. The electronic distribution of that speech doesn't change that, and is really no different, logically, from a megaphone, which I'm sure the founders were familiar with, and which I know some people used at the time when speaking before a large crowd. (Perhaps one peaceably assembling?)

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.

You contradict yourself sir. Either they only ruled on the soft money issue, or they ruled on that and the ban on mass communications ads, it can't be both. The soft money issue is probably a matter of free speech as well, but the ads issue clearly is.

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

PACs are corporations, and the law bans ads by corporations, both for profit and not for profit ones, at least according to Justice Scalia as quoted in post 1828.

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

And then the Congress will be free to plug whatever loopholes they use. The important thing about the ruling is that the Court ruled that Congress has the power to do what the Constitution clearly forbids them from doing. If they can do it once, they can do it again.

The law is the law,

And now CFR is the law. It was made law the old fashioned way...by the constitution. It was tested the old fashioned way....by the constitution.

We can change it the old fashioned way...by the constitution

Or we can put our fingers in our hears and yell nah.nah.nah and pretend its not really an enforceable law.

But clearly speech is still speech. The electronic distribution of that speech doesn't change that, and is really no different, logically, from a megaphone, which I'm sure the founders were familiar with, and which I know some people used at the time when speaking before a large crowd.

That makes a nice argument on a bulletin board, but in the real world it is absurd.

Radio waves are substantially different from sonic waves, and are necessarily treated differently in the law. Following your logic, the Federal Communications Commission and all the laws regulating radio and television broadcasts are unconstitutional. If spoken speech and radio-broadcast speech were treated the same by the law then I should be able to build a transmitter of whatever power I like and transmit anything I like at whatever frequency I please, no matter how it interferes with other transmissions or offends the little children tuning in.

The laws which allow the government to regulate the radio waves and limit offensive speech on were carefully (and repeatedly) reviewed by the courts. They represent significant variances from the simple language of the 1st Amendment. The only ways we allow those regulations are either by amending the Constitution everytime a new technology comes along, or entrust the Congress, President, and Judiciary to try to interpret the core meaning of the Constitution to fit the new requirements.

The purpose of nullification was to stop federal tyranny on the states. In the first half of the 19th century it was used routinely, mostly in the north. States would simply ignore federal laws, or state govt would pass laws protecting states against laws that they found to be oppressive. The Constitution is a voluntary contract. States could voluntarily leave the contract, just like countries withdraw from treaties. But, I don't think this Supreme Court understands that, neither does the legislature and definitely not the Executive that frequently writes bureaucratic dictats against the law.

Each branch of the Constitution is co-equal. The Founders never would have made the Supreme Court more powerful than any other branch. Each branch has the authority to interpret the Constitution. Congress is supposed to consider whether their action is Constitutional and the Executive also gets to determine whether a law just passed is Constitutional or not. Grover Cleveland routinely would veto bills that he thought didn't meet the Constitutional muster. To claim only the Supreme Court gets to interpret the Constitution is blatantly false.

You don't get the point. I am not relating campaign contributions to civil rights in the South, although it should be my right to donate as much as I want to anyone I want. In the 50s and 60s, the NAACP under cover of different groups waged a political war on pro-segregation politicians. The NAACP would create several political groups with names that were nowhere close to NAACP, because they knew that just that name would turn off several people who might otherwise agree on civil rights. With this law, govt takes away the right to be anonymous, by which most Americans participate in the election process. "People against Prescription Drugs" should be able to lambast Bush two days before the election for bloating the govt budget and burdening our next generation with huge tax increases. Not anymore.

You are entirely wrong about the nature of the Constitution. It is dissolvable only by amendment. The Union is permanent and perpetual. No state can unilaterally act to change the Union which would be the result of withdrawal.

Read Madison's letter to Hamilton wrt conditional ratification when that was being fought over at the NY state constitutional ratification convention. He states very clearly that the Union cannot be dissolve by one states or eleven states actions. Ratification was once and forever according to all the major writers of the Constitution and all the Founders were appalled at the thought of dissolving the Union. It was their greatest fear knowing as they did sure destruction of freedom would be the result.

Nullification was a never an option and never acceptable to any states outside Virginia and Virginia Jr. All the rest rejected the concept. Like I said check Andy Jackson on nullification when the idiocy raised it absurd head in South Carolina. And he was a South Carolinian and no friend of federal power.

There was no "federal tyranny" during the first half of the 18th century. The federal government was tiny and powerless. States ignoring it would be like murderers ignoring the law against killing. Just cause it happens doesn't justify it.

States' legislatures have no power to pass laws "protecting states against [federal]laws." Such indicate a total misunderstanding of the Constitution as the Law of the Land. If that were true there would be no Constitution.

Since you don't understand the role of the USSC it is not difficult to see why you don't understand many of the issues here. Obviously a nation that claims to have a Law of the Land cannot have dozens of intrepretations as to what that Law is without chaos erupting. Misunderstanding this point means you don't understand what a Constitution even is. Yet, in your ignorance, you call me "pig-headed."

The Court is not "sovereign" over the Constitution but is established to be its ultimate interpreter. That was never in question to the Founders. Clearly the People cannot establish a "more Perfect Union" if courts throughout that Union operate with no common understanding of what the Constitution, the fundamental Law, means. That is the role of the USSC as established by the Founders.

I suggest you read some real history and forget the fantasy-laden sources you apparently rely upon.

Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.

Most laws never even have a constitutional challenge and are therefore considered constitutionally valid. What is so difficult to understand about that? Playing silly games with sophistic absurdities doesn't help anything. Not that I would ever accuse you of being serious.

The important thing about the ruling is that the Court ruled that Congress has the power to do what the Constitution clearly forbids them from doing. If they can do it once, they can do it again.

Thank you!

I'll be using that line a lot in conversations, probably without attribution, 'kay?

What IS it with people who don't see the precendent that's been set this year? The camel just crawled right into the tent. All the court has to do now is invent a "compelling state interest", and suddenly "Congress shall not" becomes "the people shall not"...

Don't you understand this at all? Have you read none of the ruling or listened to any of the lawyers involved in the case? The ads banned are those paid for with soft money within the time periods. Soft money was not banned nor were ads banned. ONLY soft money ads after the time deadlines. Is this so hard for you to understand?

PACs are the format allowed other formats are excluded after the deadline if soft money is used. What is so hard to understand about this? IT is quite simple really.

It certainly is not clearly forbidden by the Constitution for Congress to take such an act. This whole discussion illustrates perfectly the complexity of constitutional interpretation and the necessity of one ultimate arbiter of its meaning. And if so much misunderstanding about this one law pervails how can you be expected to understand a far more formidible instrument, the US Constitution?

Contrary to your exaggerations Congress infrequently gets involved in election law. The last time was 30 yrs ago and I am sure it would have been met with the same hysteria and lack of comprehension of its impact as today's law.

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.