Posted on 03/27/2002 11:57:51 AM PST by ravingnutter
For Immediate Release
March 27, 2002
SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following through on his promise to challenge the constitutionality of the campaign finance bill recently passed by Congress, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today filed a legal challenge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia moments after the bill was signed into law.
"Today, I filed suit to defend the First Amendment right of all Americans to be able to fully participate in the political process,” said McConnell. "I look forward to being joined by a strong group of co-plaintiffs in the very near future.”
Last Thursday, Senator McConnell introduced the legal team that will represent him in this challenge. It consists of well-known First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; former Solicitor General and former judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Ken Starr; First Amendment Scholar and Dean of the Stanford University Law School, Kathleen Sullivan; general counsel for the Madison Center for Free Speech, James Bopp; and prominent Washington election lawyer Jan Baran.
As for the content of his legal challenge, McConnell simply said: "The complaint speaks for itself." A summary of the legal challenge is attached. For a complete text of the suit filed today, go to the following website - campaignfinance.stanford.edu.
Yeah, Gore would be defending this tooth and nail. Bush, OTOH, has probably cooked up a plan with McConnell, the NRA and others. Since SCOTUS cannot give advisory opinions, this is the only way to kill the thing permanently. And permanent solutions beat temporary solutions any day of the week.Gore would have been fighting for this tooth and nail while at the same time fighting to have the US pay taxes to the UN, and fighting for "slavery reparations". Remember his slogan: "I'll fight for you."
And don't forget, in the event of a supreme court vacancy, Gore would have chosen a lesbian leftist Lithuanian and rammed her through Senate.
Oh yeah, there would have been a difference with Gore.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last line of defense in protection against laws violating the Constitution.
Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not rape it. Perhaps you should read the federal laws and then tell me if you think what he did today to stifle free speech isn't a criminal act.
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
I don't really see it that way, especially on this issue. As was pointed out in an earlier post, and which I should have mentioned, by signing the bill he gave McConnell and open door to kill this in the Supreme Court once and for all. Once they rule, and the Constitution is clear, it goes away. If he had vetoed it, it would come back from the dead year after year.This is so well written, and says what must be said so succinctly, that I must repost the entire thing. Thank you, PsyOp, you deserve the last word on this issue.Didn't your parents ever let you do something they knew was wrong because in order for you to learn your lesson you needed to stub your toe on the facts of life? That is what is going on here and I am quite sure that Bush is working hand in hand with McConnel behind the scenes.
You also speak of the publics short memory. Have you forgotten the position that Jeffords put bush in? If you go back and look at Reagan's presidency, you will find that he had to cut lots of deals with Democrats (who were a lot easier to work with then than Daschel and company are now), in oder to get his tax cuts and military expenditures. The only difference is that Bush lacks the speaking eloquence to sell these deals to fellow Republicans that the Gipper possesed.
And last, while I have heard lots of carping about how wrong he was to sign it, those doing the complaining have conveniently glossed over the realities of the political situation and the consequences spinning his wheels on a non-issue that was destined to die in the Supreme Court anyway.
There are plenty of things I wish he were doing different, or, rather could do different. Most of these things, though, sort themselves out upon sober reflection. Like you, I wish he'd balled the bill up and thrown it in the trash. But I understand and agree with the decision not to. He did the smart thing under the circumstance, not the most gratifying thing. There is a difference.
Today a reporter on MSNBC stated that Bush has made it clear that no White House lawyers are to be used defending this new law, and that McCain has hired lawyers to defend it.
Have you heard this?
thanks
I like your shrewd take on all this, and, I think there are times when one must be so shrewd to win the day.
But, I am so sad when I see an issue such as this, which should appeal STRONGLY to the instincts of an educated citizen,
which the FFs would have held forth on so vigorously,
being reduced to just another of the hundreds of Itchy-and-Scratchy, Tom-and-Jerry, cartoon fights we have with the Rats in front of the C-SPAN cameras.
To me, this is government by Professional Wrestling -- mock rages, shaking, posturing, pretending, phony good guys and phony bad guys, all designed to appeal to the most dull-witted, or the most corrupt, or both.
With the final deal being settled, out of the public eye, by dirty old men in the Senate cloakroom or the Oval Office.
It's not my idea of what American Government should be.
It's not what so many soldiers, sailors, and militiamen died for to establish as a government, and what so many millions died for to preserve.
It's cheesy and Third-Worldish, definitely un-American.
It's a great quote, as is most of what she says, but this quote, as you know, applies to consistent pattern and practice like what the dems are always doing, and have been for decades. Do you honestly think that it applies in this case? Bush simply called a political bluff and handed it off to the Supreme Court so they can kill it once and for all. What is so underhanded, devious and Republic shattering about that?
He signed a bill that he knew was unconstitutional after taking and oath to uphold and protect the constitution.
I can't argue with you there and won't. Just remember who forced this issue and why. Sometimes you have to wrestle with pigs, and when you do, your going to get a little muddy, even if all you do is walk past the pen - but it's better crawling in with them. All things considered I believe he handled it correctly, because the whole thing was a sucker play from the beginning. And the histrionics hitting this post must be very gratifying to any WWF Dem lurkers reading it.
If this is what it is all about, I weep for our nation. For a while I thought George W. and his administration were through playing games.
Per curiam opinion, in the "case or controversy" part of which (post, pp. 11-12) all participating Members joined; and as to all other Parts of which BRENNAN, STEWART, and POWELL, JJ., joined; MARSHALL, J., joined in all but Part I-C-2; BLACKMUN, J., joined in all but Part I-B; REHNQUIST, J., joined in all but Part III-B-1; BURGER, C. J., joined in Parts I-C and IV (except insofar as it accords de facto validity for the Commission's past acts); and WHITE, J., joined in Part III. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 235, WHITE, J., post, p. 257, MARSHALL, J., post, p. 286, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 290, and REHNQUIST, J., post, p. 290, filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
Are you now sitting on the "Throne of Judgement"? Glad to know that you as a mortal human have that position.
Just trying to "make sense"
Both Justice and the SG are in the Executive Branch and therefore report to the President. Any President can direct that they attack a law, rather than defend it, if he believes that is the correct decision. Bush has not taken them out of this case, however.
If McCain has "hired his own lawyers" for the defense, it may be he does not expect anyone in the Bush Administration to pull out all the stops in the defense of this ACt. I kinda think he's right about that. Politically it will be helpful if MaCain's own man winds up as lead counsel on this.
We'll know in about three weeks who the parties all are, who the attorneys all are, and who will be the leaders on both sides in the court. Sorting out the players and passing out the game jerseys is one of the first roles of the trial court, which will fast-track this case.
Congressman Billybob
I don't like that Bush signed it either, but it seems like most is unconstiutional and that the hard money limit will be raised. The part about rich candidates makes others allowed to raise more hard money is blatantly, IMHO, unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Just a bad bill all around, but I will laugh if CFR is overturned except for hard money limit.
Thanks for info
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.