ZELL MILLER!
Posted on 12/10/2003 3:16:48 PM PST by Federalist 78
This is the kind of crap that leads to greater and greater disrespect not only for the clowns in the SC and Congress, but for the Rule of Law itself. It invites, anarchy, chaos, and possibly the violence of Civil War II.
Exactly so. While this essay puts forth a number of interesting arguments, not just a little truth, and an interesting plan of action, I submit that it will take a lot more than a nudge to get those 535 @sswipes who call themselves "representatives" to do anything that might cost them money, votes, or require that they actually do a little real work, to actually see any reality in this argument. They are as corrupt or maybe even more so than the US SC and the entire federal judiciary. It will take something catastrophic to change the inertia of this once august body of criminals and miscreants. Anyone who looks to Congress for a redress of grievances is wasting his time.
One of several outrages from them lately.
NOTE THE SIMIALRITY IN ATTITIDE EXPRESSED HERE AND IN THE POSTED ARTICLE, CONCERNING LEGISLATURES ABDICATION OF THEIR DUTY REGARDING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE.
Last week, a federal court issued a 1,700 page opinion striking down key parts of the campaign finance law. Looking back, was this bill an ill-considered regulation of free speech?
Rep. Mike Capuano (D.-Mass.): Well, I always had my concerns about it relative to free speech, but at the same time I thought it was a good attempt to make things a little bit better. I had my constitutional concerns and I still do, but I’m not the Supreme Court. Let the Supreme Court make those decisions. At the same time, just because you think you may be doing something that might violate the Constitution, if you think it’s the right thing to do, you try it. If the court knocks it down, well, you deal with it again, see if you can make it better within the constitutional parameters, whatever the court says. So I don’t think it’s necessarily ill-conceived to try something. But it’s also immature to think that you’re not pushing the line a bit. I was one of the ones who knew we were, but I thought it was worth trying… Regarding the 30- and 60-day limit on advertising—
Capuano: Yeah, I never liked that provision, because I actually think free speech is an important thing. . . . It was always the one I thought was most likely to be found unconstitutional. But you were willing to vote for it?—
Capuano: Yeah, you don’t vote for one piece at a time. You vote for the whole package. Last week, a federal court returned a 1,700-page decision striking key parts of the campaign finance reform law. In retrospect, do you think maybe this bill was an ill-considered regulation of free speech? Or would you stand by it?
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D.-Mo.): No, I wouldn’t stand by it. Under duress, I voted for it, only because my party brought it to us in that manner. And you can probably recall all of the acrimony around it, with the party leadership wanting the Democrats to solidly be behind it. And it turned out to be a disaster. And it was an assault on 1st Amendment rights, and the court has rectified that. But we’ll see what the Supreme Court does next. What kind of pressure was being put on you at the time that made you vote for what you considered an assault on the Constitution?
Clay: It was that this was a party issue, that this was how we eliminate soft money, which is so bad for the Democrats, and the court said, hey, it’s constitutional to have soft money, that’s the way people express their opinions in elections. And that’s okay. It’s more of a matter of a vote-getting strategy for the Democrats at the time. I took the vote, voted in favor of it, and lost my lunch afterwards. I just didn’t feel good about it, but this is how the system is supposed to work: the courts will clear up those issues. And now it’s time to move on and get back to the electioneering in American politics. You’re saying, ‘I took an
Clay: Those are difficult decisions for me. Do you regret it now, having done it at all?
Clay: Not really, because I think about my campaign pledge in my first election in 2000 for the House, where I pushed for campaign finance reform, although we didn’t go far enough, because we didn’t remove the influence of money in American elections. And that still remains the problem. As a matter of fact, we went in the wrong direction by increasing the limits from $1,000 to $2,000 per individual. So it was a bad bill—a poorly conceived bill, and a bad idea for American politics. And the courts have just restated that. We’ll see what the Supreme Court does. But I’m pleased it worked out the way it did. And that’s what our process, our system is about. The campaign finance reform decision from last week—it’s 1,700 pages long—it struck some of the bill’s important parts. In retrospect, was this bill an attack on 1st Amendment rights, or would you stand by the bill and the vote you cast on it?
Rep. Danny Davis (D.-Il.): Well, I would stand by the vote that I cast, because I think the intent was to try and reduce some of the big money influence on public policy decision-making. Now I agree that it is difficult to legislate certain kinds of behavior. . . .I think there were those who had reservations about the 1st Amendment being usurped all the time—I certainly had some concerns, and reservations, and possibilities. But I guess the difference between politics, in some sense, and government, is government is what you get and politics is what you want. And of course, the courts have the responsibility to uphold the law, so I wouldn’t be surprised, when the deal went down, if the court’s decision didn’t hold. The campaign finance reform decision from last week—it’s 1,700 pages long—it struck down some important parts of the law. In retrospect, was this bill an attack on 1st Amendment rights?
Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz. ): Oh, you bet. And let’s hope the Supreme Court finishes the job and kills the whole thing. In retrospect, do you have any second thoughts—maybe that this bill was an attack on free speech?
Rep. Marty Meehan (D.-Mass.): Well, the decision was actually a very good decision. It said that the ban on federal candidates raising soft money is constitutional, and that the political parties spending soft money on political advertisements—sham issue ads—is constitutional as well. So that’s the core of our bill. But the 30- and 60-day limit—
Meehan: Well, they threw that out, but they substituted that with another standard, that if it’s an ad that’s meant to influence—to elect or defeat a candidate, then it could be regulated. That’s better than many observers thought we would do . . . as long as it’s a group that prevents using corporate money and soft money for political advertising. But wasn’t that the law before—no soft money for candidates, and no—
Meehan: No, the law now is, as long as the ad doesn’t say "vote for" or "vote against" someone [then it’s permissible]. So this was a very good opinion. . . . It’s mixed, but it’s more positive than negative. Was this bill an ill-considered regulation of free speech?
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D.-N.J.): Absolutely not. The Congress can be divided into two camps—one camp thinks there’s too much money being spent on campaigns, and the other camp thinks there’s never enough money in any particular campaign. And I’m very proud to belong to the first group. I think this is a mockery. I think that what we’ve done is dragged the very character of this House and Senate—I don’t know how far below this it can go. . . .I’m very proud of my vote, and I would do it all over again and make it stronger.
I was invited to a political fundraiser last week that had to do with the Nevada Supreme Court nullifying a portion of the NV Constitution for the purpose of getting a budget passed. Several NV state legislators are suing the NVSC through federal court and the lawyer representing the case gave a speech on the whole situation and had a Q&A session afterwards. One of the questions was, 'what do we do if we lose this case?'. The lawyer said that there are several legal remedies, but because the case had to do with the right of the people to govern themselves, the Second Amendment Solution was not out of the question.
Lets face it they are the worst offenders for the reasons you claim to be sophistry.
The are the worst offenders for allowing a federal judiciary to run unchecked as described in the article and in post # 15.
I pray that we can reverse some of the damage done. It will take decades. I am not optimistic.
Commentary Magazine published a Symposium, October 2003, "Has the Supreme Court Gone Too Far?"
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, commented:
Still, if 2002-2003 was, as Michael Greve of AEI has put it, "the term the Constitution died," maybe now is an opportunity for fresh thinking and bold action to revive constitutionalism.
Maybe the illegal immigrants will provide the necessary "fresh thinking" and "bold action" to restore the Constitution.
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.