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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Who is John Galt?]

...and, of course, pardon the typo...

;>)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Freedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The "press" is TOTALLY unaffected. What part of these simple realities are over your head?

[justshutupandtakeit]

That article is a great example of NOISE in the tent. It just repeats false statements many of which we have seen here. BUT at least it seems to understand that the "press" is TOTALLY unaffected by this law.

Where do people get the idea that the electronic media is outside government regulation? After all the broadcast rights are GRANTED by government. No one just decides they are going to start a tv station then begins broadcasting what they want when they want.

Why would you try and make people believe that the camel's nose is in the tent when the whole camel has been sitting peacefully in the tent smoking a hookah for decades.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently, among other things, you are not aware of the meaning of the term "non sequitur."

[Eastbound]

"It just repeats false statements . . . "

(a) Okay, I'll listen. Please enumerate the statements that you consider false and add your comments after each one. Thanks.

(b) And regardless, do you or do you not agree that A1 is being kicked in the cajones by the court?

(c) Why was Pres. Bush hesitant to sign the bill? Did he really know it was over-reaching and thought the court would toss it out anyway or was he just dancing around the jimmyjohn before taking a swig?

(d) Why did congress sign the bill if they knew it was over-reaching? Were they just dancing around the jimmyjohn before taking a swig?

(e) Do you have a vested in CFR or do you just like to debate?

(f) If you would state your credentials, I would be in a better position to judge whether I should believe you or the dissenting judges, Congressman Billybob and most of the the FReepers on this issue.

Thanks again and Season's Greetz! -- Dave

[Who is John Galt?]

Freedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Two points:

1) You are comparing the NRA running an ad about a candidate's 2nd Amendment stance to "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." How nice. In fact, there is no comparison - unless, of course, the theater is on fire, in which case, "yelling 'fire'" is not prohibited.

2) The Constitution states quite clearly that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Even if you were correct and "(f)reedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," Congress would still be prohibited from making such a law. Such matters were reserved by the States.

In short, this entire issue is quite obviously "over your head." No surprise there, given your suggestion that the establishment of a Clinton monarchy would be 'constitutional'...

;>)

[The_Eaglet]

2) The Constitution states quite clearly that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Even if you were correct and "(f)reedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," Congress would still be prohibited from making such a law. Such matters were reserved by the States.

It appears to be up to the electorate to hold public servants accountable for Congress' violation of this Amendment. The President and the Supreme Court has failed to do so.

[The_Eaglet]

Daily (Stop the so-called) Campaign Finance Reform Thread

[The_Eaglet]

Okay, I'll listen. Please enumerate the statements that you consider false and add your comments after each one. Thanks.

I don't see any more complaints. :)