Free Republic's Comments on the FEC's Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Internet Communications

Federal Election Commission ^ | Friday, June 3, 2005 | Kristinn

[An.American.Expatriate]

The FEC could rule...

Any such ruling would be unconstitutional as the FEC was not granted the power to do so.

The CONGRESS *could* do so (and has) in certain cases (such as slander).

To be honest, I would NOT object to haveing the common sense restrictions of speech apply to the internet. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world where common sense is used! Thus, any federal restrictions of speech, whether on the internet or elsewhere are probably not a good idea.

[Utilizer]

kristinn, there is no need to apologize. I Myself have attempted to support FR in every way possible and whenever possible (ummm... JimRob, I believe I might have another "Contribution To The Cause" available fairly quickly -before the end of the month I am certain...), and so I hope that others besides yourself will be ever willing to make a sincere effort when the time comes.

We all do what we can, whenever possible. Speaking for Myself, I am just thankful that you are able to assist us at all with the particular area of (*cough*) expertise you are capable of, as I hope I would be ready to if the time came for Me to do so where I were most capable of...

Thank you for your contributions.

[Watery Tart]

Calling all the Pavers! This is a rally-'round-the- website ping!

Of course, it goes without saying that the X42s must never dirty the towels of our White House again. Or all of our efforts are for naught....

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Ugh.

Just the thought of that makes me cringe.

Fight for freedom of expression, it's a pretty good cause.

:)

Thanks for the ping, WT.

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

[Darksheare]

Bump, well worded, and thanks for the ping.

[Conspiracy Guy]

: )

[Fierce Allegiance]

I'm honored!

[TheForceOfOne]

You're very well spoken and a fine example of what makes me proud to be a Freeper.

I fear that any alternate media source such as conservative talk radio or Internet websites that challenge the status quo of political power in either of the two major parties or the MSM will be under attack in the attempt to silence the voice of those who for so long went unheard and unnoticed. Those who hold the power make it so that they maintain the power through suppression of any opposition by use and creation of laws.

I learn a lot reading the posts by you and others here at Free Republic, and I am still learning with a lot more to learn.

Thank you,
Rob

[DoctorMichael]

Bump-a-rooney!

[Liberty Valance]

Bump for great justice.
All our base are belong to us.

[George Smiley]

Dear Mr. Commissioner:

Despite the attempt in McConnell v. FEC to redefine "no law" as "well, sometimes", "no law" is still "no law", and Marbury v. Madison has not been overturned:

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

. . .

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

George Smiley

[traviskicks]

Excellent! You put the legal teeth into my exact sentiments.

This is just too good:

"It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual."


Mind if I quote you on that?

[George Smiley]

You're not quoting me, you're quoting Chief Justice John Marshall.

Here's the entire opinion.

[George Smiley]

And I apologize to all for not formally using the proper style when citing Marbury v. Madison. I made the assumption that the phrase about any law that is repugnant to the Constitution being null and void was a dead giveaway to the origin of the quote.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Like FReepers from the Mongolian Empire - just a little joke at your screenname LOL!

I see your from India - great country - all four Beatles can't be wrong!!

[Gengis Khan]

We have one thing in common (probably among a few more).
Did you notice....our flags have the same tri-colour.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Those FEC Meatheads should Just. Butt. Out.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Ya, I noticed that - a few more: we are both republics, and we were once ruled by the British (but we like the Brits); oh ya, one more, a piece of disputed territory northwards!!!LOL

[processing please hold]

It was excellent. No need for apologies.

[processing please hold]

Hoorah. Well said. Alot of us feel this way. We are like a pot ready to boil over and our leaders either don't know...or don't care.