SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

Sen. Mitch McConnell ^ | March 27, 2002 | McConnell's Press Office

[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.

[cmsgop]

Had he done the dog and pony show with Shays, Meehan, Feingold and McNut I would be one of the ones screaming,

and I would be right next to you on your couch!!!!

[Renatus]

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?

Either he meant what he said when he put his hand on the Bible and swore before God and the whole world that he would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States or he didn't. His action today clearly shows that he didn't. Now splain to me how one can sign a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the constitution.

[McGavin999]

Well, let's see: I've read it here US Constitution Cornell

Here: US Constitution-National Archives

Here: US Founding Documents-Emory

There are numerous other sources, you might try it some time.

[madison46]

Probably distaste; however, and yes I'm mad it made it into law, think about this: Most if not all of it is unconstitutional BUT the hard money limit where GOP rules is raised from $1,000 to $2,000. That hurts the Democrooks as does the slap when it is declared unconstitutional. 2nd) Bush takes away a campaign issue.

No, I don't like to sell out principle, but if your going to turn a weakness into a strength, this is perfect political judo. Dems are going to be kicking themselves. Enron made this a poltical weakness and there is nothing Bush could have done about that. Without Enron, we'd never have heard about CFR and Bush probably would have stuck to his 6-point requirements. Given the Enron hand dealt him, having the 2k limit put in, IS good strategery by Bush.

[McGavin999]

Nothing expressly forbids it, it's the simple seperation of powers that should be honored. Bush is asking that the executive perogatives spelled out in the constitution for the president be honored, why on earth would he take on the perogative of the USSC at this time. Use your head. The congress has been stepping all over the executive and the judicial branch, the judicial has been impinging on the legislative, and (during Clinton's stay) the executive walked all over both the legislative and judicial. It's time the three branches of government realined and took care of the duties the constitution requires of them.

[McGavin999]

You got that right Luis :o)

[McGavin999]

Sure, he could veto it, and it would stay alive and continue to be passed. This way, SCOTUS will kill it dead. Once it is declared unconstitutional by the USSC it will NOT be resurrected, it's dead, done, over.

[JavaTheHutt]

well bully for you, you actually know how to find something on the internet. but have you actually bothered to read it?

[sleavelessinseattle]

Nutter, I appreciate that newsmax link and am willing to acknowledge your efforts, Thanks!...</ minor personal tizzy>

[madison46]

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." — Abraham Lincoln

Not the way our constitution was set up to run.

[McGavin999]

Yes, as a matter of fact I have. You might want to try it, seems our forefathers wanted to have 3 different branches in charge of 3 different things in order to provide checks and balances on the powers. I assume they meant what they said, rather that apply the "liberal" interprestation that says "well they MEANT......."

It's really pretty simple. The legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch executes the law, and the judicial interprets the law. See, quite simple. It only gets confusing when the legislative trys to execute, the executive trys to interpret, and the judicial trys to legislate. I tend to be a purist.

Obviously, from your comments, you like the more "progressive" interpretation of the constitution as a "living document" that can mean whatever you want it to mean.

[marajade]

So what, the Republicans have lost control of the Senate already... I would love to see McCain leave the party.

[marajade]

How do we know its unconstitutional until the US Supreme Court orders it so?

[itsahoot]

But I want the Senate Back ASAP! It's a Game, Pure and Simple!

Well Duh! right back. The point is just because you elect
a person that claims to be a Republican, don't mean
they are.

Remember the Jeffords!!!

[madison46]

Please read #170, also, if a law is passed saying the army will take your house, read you papers, live in your house etc...Is that constitutional until the SCOTUS says so?

[McGavin999]

Gee, I didn't realize that Abraham Lincoln wrote the constitution.

[Centurion2000]

Bump for this guy. At least he can figure out what Constitutional means.

[marajade]

His base didn't turn out in 2000 and vote him into office. So who cares about the religious right, I for one am getting tired of all their threats.

[marajade]

"I at one time actually thought he was a man of principle."

No you didn't. Keysters only believe that Keyes has principles and that no one else on earth can meet the bar Keyes sets.

[cmsgop]

Good Slogan!!!