Skip to comments.
Free Republic's Comments on the FEC's Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Internet Communications
Federal Election Commission ^
| Friday, June 3, 2005
| Kristinn
Posted on 06/09/2005 1:35:23 PM PDT by kristinn
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-130 next last
To: staytrue
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.
101
posted on
06/10/2005 12:49:22 AM PDT
by
An.American.Expatriate
(Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
To: kristinn
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.
102
posted on
06/10/2005 1:03:15 AM PDT
by
Utilizer
(WinDoze "XXX"ES. Adult-rated, ready for the desktop! It STILL sucks -but we repeat ourselves...)
To: kristinn; Jim Robinson; Neets; Darksheare; scott0347; timpad; Conspiracy Guy; NYC GOP Chick; ...
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....
103
posted on
06/10/2005 1:30:30 AM PDT
by
Watery Tart
(Let the troof be toad. ®)
To: Watery Tart
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.)
To: kristinn; Jim Robinson; Watery Tart
Bump, well worded, and thanks for the ping.
105
posted on
06/10/2005 4:40:48 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Hey troll, Sith happens.)
To: Calpernia
106
posted on
06/10/2005 4:48:51 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Caution. Contents under pressure.)
To: The SISU kid
107
posted on
06/10/2005 6:12:23 AM PDT
by
Fierce Allegiance
(This is not your granddaddy's America...)
To: kristinn
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
108
posted on
06/10/2005 6:30:01 AM PDT
by
TheForceOfOne
(My tagline is currently being blocked by Congressional filibuster for being to harsh.)
109
posted on
06/10/2005 6:35:13 AM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
To: kristinn
Bump for great justice.
All our base are belong to us.
110
posted on
06/10/2005 6:47:45 AM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(If you must filibuster, it's because you don't have the votes to win honestly)
To: traviskicks
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
111
posted on
06/10/2005 8:09:52 AM PDT
by
George Smiley
(This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
To: George Smiley
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?
112
posted on
06/10/2005 8:41:06 AM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm)
To: traviskicks
113
posted on
06/10/2005 8:52:41 AM PDT
by
George Smiley
(This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
To: traviskicks
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.
114
posted on
06/10/2005 9:00:17 AM PDT
by
George Smiley
(This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
To: Gengis Khan
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!!
115
posted on
06/10/2005 11:51:14 AM PDT
by
Irish_Thatcherite
(Orwellian Relativism: All philosophies are equal, but some philosophies are more equal than others.)
To: Irish_Thatcherite
We have one thing in common (probably among a few more).
Did you notice....our flags have the same tri-colour.
116
posted on
06/10/2005 12:52:47 PM PDT
by
Gengis Khan
(Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
To: staytrue
Those FEC Meatheads should Just. Butt. Out.
To: Gengis Khan
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
118
posted on
06/10/2005 5:51:27 PM PDT
by
Irish_Thatcherite
(Orwellian Relativism: All philosophies are equal, but some philosophies are more equal than others.)
To: kristinn
It was excellent. No need for apologies.
119
posted on
06/10/2005 8:32:54 PM PDT
by
processing please hold
(Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
To: traviskicks
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.
120
posted on
06/10/2005 8:40:52 PM PDT
by
processing please hold
(Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-130 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson