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.
All the more reason President Bush should have vetoed the bill.
That's what I call lying, breaking one's promises, and violating an oath one called upon God Himself to witness.
You are really into this stuff... Now you know the he knew the bill was unconstitutional... wow. It's one thing to question parts are all of it as being unconstitutional but the final determinate under our system is the Judiciary.... The peoples representatives spoke, do you have a problem with our system?
Just trying to "make sense"
Do you think that President Bush felt a surge of pride or distaste when he signed that bill this morning?
Dubya is one smart politician. At first take, I wished he would have slammed-dunked this anti first amendment CFR sham.
But, he has learned "wisely" during his Yale days in the "Skulls and Bones"....he set up the democRATS and McPain for a Supreme Court rejection in their attempted usurpation of the Constitution. He wins on both side.
Mustang sends.
Okay... Now splain it to me how signing the bill so Mitch can run it over to the Supreme Court for a proper roasting fundamentally voilates that oath? Perhaps, if the poison pill language wasn't there, and Mitch and others were not standing by to ferry it accross the river Styx and into Supreme Court oblivion, you would have point.
P.S. Go look up the word politics, it might shed some light on the issue for you. This is real world, not a passion play or a greek tragedy, Renatus.
Constitution-hater Bush already gave your money to Planned Parenthood. He let it be known that the Vitter Amendment should be dropped in the House, but that the CFR should advance. Shows you where his loyalties lie. Why are people so surprised that Bush is a Bush....?
Because not one republican [OK, maybe a handfull, but I haven't heard of any], stood up and said, "I have taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. This bill, which would restrict the freedom of speech for all Americans, is a violation of the First Amendment. Therefore I can't vote for/sign it."
Instead, all I hear is excuses from the Bush apologists as we waltz down the Road to Serfdom. "Just wait, brilliant move, this will work out...blahblahblah"
What is it going to take to wake some people up? A knock on the door at 3AM?
No Tizzy here, the plain and simple truth is the President
could have and should have vetoed this bill. Nothing I heard
during the campaign would have led me to beleive he would
ever sign anything like this. As a matter of fact he said it would
mean the end of the Republican party.
This is not an issue that should not be decided on the basis of
some calculated political ploy, but the common sense constitutional
Issue.
Look, I screamed with the loudest here that Bush should veto CFR, I wrote emails to the Whitehouse and I signed the petition (and before the bill passed to all three of my congresspukes) but now it's over and we have to go forward.
Going forward for me means --- now that Bush has decided to act in the way that he has --- accepting his decision and supporting him, maybe not in this decision but as the President I voted for. And accepting that his judgement on this issue (an issue that must surely have been discussed at length with his advisors) is better than my own. I chose to look forward, at the next battle. I have NOT lost my faith in my president, just because he did something I disagreed with.
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.