ZELL MILLER!
Posted on 12/10/2003 4:07:19 PM PST by truthandlife
In reaction to Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, a public interest law firm, which represented the rights of minors before the high court, expressed disappointment that the court upheld the ban on advocacy advertising.
The Supreme Court ruled that a ban prohibiting minors under the age of 18 from making monetary contributions to political campaigns of their choice was unconstitutional. The court also ruled constitutional a ban on advocacy advertising.
"The unanimous decision to uphold the constitutional rights of young people to participate in a key area of the electoral process represents an enormously important First Amendment victory," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
"The decision clears the way for young people to exercise their First Amendment freedoms in the context of a political campaign. The decision sends a strong message that the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association for young people must be protected," Sekulow said.
In striking down the ban on minors, the court said that "minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment" adding that "limitations on the amount that an individual may contribute to a candidate or political committee impinge on the protected freedoms of expression and association."
But Sekulow was less than pleased with the court's ruling on advocacy ads.
"While it is encouraging that the high court acted to protect the constitutional rights of minors, it is unfortunate that the court turned its back on protecting the constitutional rights of advocacy groups," said Sekulow.
"By upholding the constitutionality of the law's advertising ban, advocacy groups will be effectively shut out of being able to express their opinions and views on the moral and cultural issues that play a key role in elections," Sekulow added.
"The free speech rights of minors were protected, but the free speech rights of other Americans suffered a serious setback with this decision," Sekulow concluded.
Other groups, like the National Rifle Association, agreed with the ACLJ's condemnation of the court's ruling on advocacy ads.
"This is a sad day for the Constitution, but the 4 million members of the NRA will continue to be heard. That I can promise," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in a statement.
"Today's decision begins a new era in free speech analysis for constitutional scholars, but marks a terrible day for millions of Americans who were once able to make their voices heard through the nation's airwaves and broadcast channels," said L. Lynn Hogue, executive director for the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
"It is no longer clear going forward exactly what 'protected political speech' is, and that can only have a damaging effect on a free, democratic society," Hogue said.
"BCRA will turn out to be a full employment bill for the lawyers and accountants who will be required to steer even ordinary citizens who want to speak out on politicians and political issues through the legal labyrinth that Congress created in this law. Free speech took a hard knock with this decision," added Hogue.
In its role as counsel for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) said it was disappointed by Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to uphold changes to campaign finance laws, making it more difficult for voters to learn about candidates and issues in the days before an election.
"Prohibiting the use of TV and radio ads in the days and weeks just before an election will blindfold voters just as they are interested in learning about the candidates and the issues," said Thomas Donohue, Chamber and NCLC President and CEO. "This decision is a disappointing step back toward less information, fewer options and restricted speech."
"The decision will affect the means of our political efforts, but not our commitment," said Donohue. "The issues of government taxes, spending, federal regulations and legal reform are too important for the business community, for workers and for the economy. We will continue to follow the law on political activity and we will continue to be the voice of business."
Supporters of the law, including the bill's sponsors Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), and Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) applauded the court's ruling on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
"This opinion represents a landmark victory for the American people in the effort to reform their political system. Now that the Court has spoken, we must make sure that the law is properly interpreted and enforced," they wrote in a statement.
As some expected, the court also upheld a ban on so-called soft money political contributions. But the court had no illusions about the ability of some to get around the restrictions.
"We are under no illusion that [the law] 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," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.
They need to be removed and put in a place where they are no longer allowed to hurt people.
All groups should immediately campaign for the impeachment of those justices and their subsequent conviction for warring against the Republic.
Since the law was passed by Congress and signed by the President, shouldn't your campaign start with those officers, each of whom swore to uphold the Constitution?
Given that the judges are merely upholding the statute passed by the majority of the currently-sitting legislators, by what logic could impeachment even be considered?
Even though the "majority" voted for the law, they did so feeling the SC would overturn the unconstitutional parts.
Obviously that "majority" should not be given the privilege of seppuku, but that's a different issue.
It is arguable that when Congress bounces a question over to the SC that it is the SC's duty to toss out whatever laws are involved and bounce it back to Congress. The SC here did not do that and should therefore be punished by removal and hard time at a maximum security penitentary.
What say you now, Bushbots?
Congress is free to repeal the CFR if it wants to. It doesn't need the Supreme Court to do it for them.
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.