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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Each branch must consider the constitutionality of its actions but only the Court has the ultimate word on it. Nixon had no choice but to surrender the tapes when the Court ruled he must. Even the Executive must obey the Court or make a mockery of the concept of law. Only a Clinton would believe himself to be above the law. Are you claiming that the Executive has the right to defy the USSC's rulings if it believes them unconstitutional?

It is true presidents can veto bills but that can occur for many reasons. He can veto would-be laws which are perfectly constitutional as well as would-be laws for any reason whatsoever. It is true that if he vetos a would-be law and says it was because it was unconstitutional the Court has nothing to say about it. But it only rules on actual laws not semi-laws. Bills which are prevented from becoming law are not Laws.

However there is another aspect here which gives Congress ultimate control over the whole situation. Congress has the right to restrict the Court as to its jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause. It never has used that power but that does not remove the clause from the Constitution. All the branches are equal but the Founders intended that Congress be slightly more equal than the rest.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your ad can easily be run just fund it through hard money donations and you will have no problem. The only problem is if "Sneaky Backbiting Bastids" gets a million from Soros to concoct a Lie that Bush sat down with Osama Ben Laden and planned 9/11 and runs it as an ad after the deadline for Stealth Lying passes.

I hope you realize that there was great difficulty in having a violation of this policy in order to challenge the law. No real political groups violated it so the ACLU ran one political ad WHICH IT HAD NEVER DONE BEFORE IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY explicitly so that it could challenge this law.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, and I do get the point wrt to the NAACP none of their actions would be affected by CFR. It could still form the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committees as it wished since these were NOT related to electoral politics.

[azhenfud]

"You're telling me that Liddy had NO challengers in the Republican primary?"<>I'm reminding you that the RNC endorsed Giddy as if there WERE NO OTHER CANDIDATES EVEN BEFORE NORTH CAROLINIANS could speak at the PRIMARIES. Handpicked by the RNC as if no other candidate were running.

[azhenfud]

justshutupandtakeit, you said to me:

"We could not change THAT government or its laws we certainly CAN change THIS one."

ROTFL! You are too funny.

(You did mean that as a joke, right?)

[azhenfud]

"There was no 'federal tyranny' during the first half of the 18th century."

Uh oh. There goes our conversation.

[bvw]

Oh I understand the role of the Supreme Court. And unlike you, my ears are open and my eyes take in what at first might not seem so agreeable to them, and my peripheral vision -- probably unmathced by one out of a hundred thousand or more.

Here read this:

Article 12

That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments

[bvw]

"the ultimate word"

You are out of time, I mean that view your are holding had its fifty-or-so-year run. A bad run, at that, some good needed gold and diamonds in the van but mostly a truck full of slask. (To use a swedish word.) It wasn't held prior and it shan't be held anymore. The Supreme Court has made too much a fool of itself to maintain that concept of final absolute authority. (A concept founded in sloth and hubris, both.) Read this:

... the famous Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison had in the past been interpreted as an absolutist claim that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the Constitution. Modern scholarship recognizes that the famous decision merely argues that the Supreme Court’s duty to interpret the Constitution was the same as that of the Congress and the President. Far from demanding judicial supremacy, Chief Justice Marshall had asserted for the judiciary the same interpretative role of the popular will that the legislative and executive branches perform.

(Source: Cornell Review, "Balance of Law Upset", http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=265)

And not just "modern scholarship", but such was the case prior to the wool of sloth being pulled over the nation's legal eyes, back before the twenties.

[Roscoe]

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.

Too difficult for you?

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: 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?

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

Really? Care to quote the article, section, and clause of the U.S. Constitution that says so? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

;>)

Playing silly games with sophistic absurdities doesn't help anything.

The government law in my example (establishing a monarchy without amending the Constitution) was undeniably unconstitutional, and yet you insist that it would be constitutional. It is your view of 'constitutionality' that is 'absurd'...

Not that I would ever accuse you of being serious.

I can safely say that you are one of the most mindless human beings I've ever encountered. Congratulations for reaching the bottom of the barrel!

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Care to reply to Post #1,886? I believe I've simplified things so much that even you should be able to understand the question. You have three (3) choices: pick one (1)...

;>)

[Eastbound]

"First the Act was never repealed, it had a sunset provision and was never re-enacted."

Well, okay.

"Second there is nothing in the current law remotely similiar to the A and S acts. CFR says NOTHING about criticizing the government. Show me where it does if I am incorrect."

I understood that the reason for the soft money ban was to prevent last minute exposes and highly inflammatory articles critical of candidates, regardless if they were true or not. If so, that would be a partial, but selective resurrection of some of the provisions of the A and S act.

[WhiteGuy]

I was just on the phone with a friend..............

He told me to watch out for something MAJOR happening in the next 48 hours....................

Distraction based on the negative response to the SCOTUS sell-out...............

---

OK, so it took a little longer..........

My pal tells me that Saddam will never live to see his "trial" or whatever they decide to call it.

There will be reports that Saddam is "cooperating" and sharing info............

He's not............

Of course I told him he's crazy.........

[alnick]

There will be reports that Saddam is "cooperating" and sharing info............

The reports are that he is cooperating but not sharing information. "Cooperating" in this case means being passive as far as how he is being handled. In other words, if they tell him to sit, he sits. He allowed them to check his mouth without resistence, etc.

[WhiteGuy]

I understand.............

Just passing along info I've heard...........

[justshutupandtakeit]

Candidates are NOT the "government."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Too much B.S. for me since it is FALSE. Nothing prevents anyone from criticizing Congress.

You have to learn to separate popular fiction from reality.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Awww, poor babies. They just had to go along didn't they? They couldn't exhibit independence of mind now could they?

How absurd is that allegation?

[justshutupandtakeit]

We had NO representatives in Parliament in case you forgot.
We have 535 in Congress. In case you forgot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There was no "federal tyranny" during the first half of the 1800s. Why don't you tell us all about it? WHO were those "tyrants" Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, JQAdams, Van Buren, Jackson, Polk, Tyler. While not totally enamoured of some of these NONE were "tyrants" or even close. Webster, Clay, Calhoun? Who. Let's have some names to back up your ignorant comment.