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.
Camps. When there's too many for jail, camps are the first, best alternative.
Easily constructed and efficient, masses can be concentrated in them.
Essentially, this ruling will stop no one from raising any amount of tainted money they can. George Soros and the leftist 521s he and others will establish fully intend to spend an estimated 400 million dollars on the next presidential election alone. That will be the most ever spent during any election. If this happens, the law will have effectively, and obviously backfired, with enormously dire and damaging consequences, i.e. the election of a corrupt Democrat, and the calamitous results thereof. Carp about Bush's failure to head this off if you like, but you had better save your breath for later, because you will need it.
The real effect of all of this will be to greatly increase the advantage incumbents have over their challengers. They can use their offices and influence to set up 521s, and use their positions of power to get free publicity and get their faces, names, and spiel out to the public, even after the 60 day deadline has passed. The electoral challenger is essentially screwed. Is that what makes for a "Free Republic?" Explain this to me, I am willing to listen.
The second part of the decision is like the SCOTUS splashing toxic waste on the very heart of our Constitution and Republic. The First Amendment has not only has had its throat cut, but it is now hanging upside down, bleeding to death. The idiocy of this ruling is monstrous and insane, obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. I would like to understand what basis this ruling was made on?
"The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates." Who decides what is harsh? What if they were nice, but still criticized their opponent? This is idiotic, and an ominous portent for the future. Why is 60 days sacrosanct? Why not ban broadcast opposition ads from being aired 90, or 120, or 365 days before the election? And why not limit print ads? Because that limits "freedom of the press"? The electronic press has long been established, but opponents don't have anywhere near the easy access to it that incumbents do. If you can limit political ads criticizing incumbents, which means limiting political speech, why not limit the press and what and who they can criticize before the election?
Once this precedent is established, the same kind of corrupt rationalization can be used to ensure political power remains with those who currently hold it. The dam is breached. And just like the Texas Sodomy ruling, the states will not be able to alter, soften, or change this decision, as they are overruled by the SCOTUS. It was denied by radical homosexual activists that there would be unforeseen consequences to that ruling. This has already been totally disproven, with the Green polygamy case. There will be many, many others, attempting to legalize any and all kinds of sexual perversion, and attempting to force us to not only allow it, but to accept it as the norm. Insane. Unless this ruling is challenged and struck down somehow, the First Amendment will become as moribund and superfluous as the 10th. Can the end of our Republican Democracy be very far behind?
Sure, you can say that I am hyperventilating on this. "Lets' just wait and see. Perhaps things won't be so bad as you say." And, just like the soft money provision of this ruling, it will be likely circumvented in any number of devious and even creative ways. The internet is not covered, -at least I think it isn't, and of course print ads aren't either. Does anyone see any provision in this now upheld attack on our First Amendments rights, that prevents its expansion and broadening of language, to further erode what is left of our political rights? There is no reason to believe that, regardless of whether every provision of this ruling will ultimately prove to be as leaky as a screen door on a submarine, we will NOT see McCain-Feingold II, and III, and IV, etc. And what basis will the SCOTUS use to determine that any future law goes too far in limiting political speech? Perhaps because they don't mean it to? And why has "original intent" ever stopped the devious and corrupt legal weasels of our society in their attempt to garner advantages and to punish their enemies via the distortion of the Constitution and judicial rulings? Face it folks, this is bad... real, real bad.
And they were the big winner in the California recall how? The media really did a good job in protecting Gray Davis didn't they.
See...that's the problem. We can't be sure what these black-robed dictators will do once they're confirmed.
President Bush had a duty to veto this, and he failed to do so. While he deserves credit on other issues, he deserves criticism on this one.
W.N.R.A.
socialism \so-she-li-zem\ noun (1837)
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
"Private ownership of the means of production is impossible under socialism see Marx, Karl."
When the govm't controls everything, no one owns anything.
How about congress's right to establish rules regarding the elections of its members ?
Are you under the impression that the executive branch writes laws?
Are you not familiar with the three branches of the government?
Bush warned them that THEIR job was to stop this bill; and he plainly stated that HE thought parts of it was unconstitutional.
He was wrong, along with a lot of other people.
But, as an aside, I'm sure a bill President Gore/Dean/Clinton would have given us would have been much better.
'Hillarious did not steal the White House silverware. She only borrowed it and wants to return it. Send Hillarious back to the White House, sooner, rather than later! Opponents have said that Hillarious is an opportunist witchbitch whose lust for power is only exceeded by her appetite for cottage cheese. The truth of the matter is that she really hates cottage cheese.
A vote for Hillarious is a vote for DIperVERSITY!'
(Paid for by the Committee to Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility, and Re-furbish the White House)
Putting your shrillness aside for a moment, had Bush not signed this, would it NOT have gone to the SCOTUS?
I was one of the "experts" who confidently predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down major portions of this law. I believed that at least five Justices would follow their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
However, I stated a consequence of my being wrong. I said I would resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court if "we" (meaning all the lawyers against this law) failed to get major parts of this law chucked in the trash.
My 18th brief in the Supreme Court will be filed on 19 December. I do not have a right to harm my client, who commissioned that brief. So I must hold off my resignation until the Ninth Circuit "under God" decision has come down. Then I can resign -- and make it clear in public and no uncertain language -- why I am resigning.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.
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.