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.
Your argument that the “oath of office” requires presidents to veto bills they consider “unconstitutional” is specious. If that were true, then every president that signed a law that was subsequently actually found to be unconstitutional would be subject to Impeachment. The same goes for any president that was on record as saying an existing law was in his opinion unconstitutional but yet enforced those laws would be even MORE in violation of his “oath” as you define it.
I am pretty sure he was using a metaphor, doubt that he
was proclaiming himself to be God. Let's lighten up a little folks.
Folks, this bill HAS to go to the Supreme Court NOW while we still have enough Justices on it who value the Constitution, and settle this issue for the future.
Bush had to make a decision to keep himself in a position where he could fight for a majority Senate for the second half of his term, a position that will allow him to appoint the appellate judges and Supreme Court Justices that will better be able to defend the Constitution from all sorts of assaults. Needless to say getting a majority will be very hard as the tradition is for the President to lose seats in the off year elections.
If we don't get a majority Senate, the Democrats will block all his best appointments to the courts, using a religious test. Currently HALF of appellate judges are Clinton appointments. How well do you think they are doing in defending the Constitution?
Like the Vietnam War, this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision in terms of consequences. The President made a tough call, one a lot of people aren't happy with, and time will tell if the strategery will work the way he is praying.
I bet you can get this one in less than the usual 3 guesses.
Hint! I bet tax dollars are involved. Your job, guess whose?
I would imagine through soft money donations. :o)
The President was asked, during the campaign, by George Will, "Do you believe that you should veto any legislation that YOU believe is unconstitutional"? Then Gov. Bush said "I do".
It's on tape, and was shown again on This Week last Sunday.
Oh, so that was then and this is now?
I thought this was a conservative thread not a liberal. . Obviously, MANY OF ..., you like the more "progressive" interpretation of the constitution as a "living document" that can mean whatever you want it to mean.
SO GET ON A LIBERAL THREAD!
Don't compare President Bush to Clinton
Don't compare President Bush to Clinton
He signed it and he didn't have to. He stated that there were "constitutional issues" with the bill. That being the case, he should have sent it back to the House. At least according to my copy of the Constitution that is.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
The Constitution allows the president to veto a law for any reason whatsoever. Your fantastic interpretation of the veto power renders it nugatory. What language in the document do you rely on to support such a view?
Sheesh!
But it doesn't have "paycheck protection" for workers - a condition that Bush once said had to be in a bill for him to sign it.
Of course, he didn't say "Read my lips".
Of course we shouldn't. Clinton was a low-class oath-violator and liar.
| President | Coincident Congresses |
Regular vetoes |
Pocket vetoes |
Total vetoes |
Vetoes overridden |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washington | 1st–4th | 2 | — | 2 | — |
| Adams | 5th–6th | — | — | — | — |
| Jefferson | 7th–10th | — | — | — | — |
| Madison | 11th–14th | 5 | 2 | 7 | — |
| Monroe | 15th–18th | 1 | — | 1 | — |
| J. Q. Adams | 19th–20th | — | — | — | — |
| Jackson | 21st–24th | 5 | 7 | 12 | — |
| Van Buren | 25th–26th | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| W. H. Harrison | 27th | — | — | — | — |
| Tyler | 27th–28th | 6 | 4 | 10 | 1 |
| Polk | 29th–30th | 2 | 1 | 3 | — |
| Taylor | 31st | — | — | — | — |
| Fillmore | 31st–32nd | — | — | — | — |
| Pierce | 33rd–34th | 9 | — | 9 | 5 |
| Buchanan | 35th–36th | 4 | 3 | 7 | — |
| Lincoln | 37th–39th | 2 | 5 | 7 | — |
| A. Johnson | 39th–40th | 21 | 8 | 29 | 15 |
| Grant | 41st–44th | 45 | 48 | 93 | 4 |
| Hayes | 45th–46th | 12 | 1 | 13 | 1 |
| Garfield | 47th | — | — | — | — |
| Arthur | 47th–48th | 4 | 8 | 12 | 1 |
| Cleveland | 49th–50th | 304 | 110 | 414 | 2 |
| B. Harrison | 51st–52nd | 19 | 25 | 44 | 1 |
| Cleveland | 53rd–54th | 42 | 128 | 170 | 5 |
| McKinley | 55th–57th | 6 | 36 | 42 | — |
| T. Roosevelt | 57th–60th | 42 | 40 | 82 | 1 |
| Taft | 61st–62nd | 30 | 9 | 39 | 1 |
| Wilson | 63rd–66th | 33 | 11 | 44 | 6 |
| Harding | 67th | 5 | 1 | 6 | — |
| Coolidge | 68th–70th | 20 | 30 | 50 | 4 |
| Hoover | 71st–72nd | 21 | 16 | 37 | 3 |
| F. D. Roosevelt | 73rd–79th | 372 | 263 | 635 | 9 |
| Truman | 79th–82nd | 180 | 70 | 250 | 12 |
| Eisenhower | 83rd–86th | 73 | 108 | 181 | 2 |
| Kennedy | 87th–88th | 12 | 9 | 21 | — |
| L. B. Johnson | 88th–90th | 16 | 14 | 30 | — |
| Nixon | 91st–93rd | 26 | 17 | 43 | 7 |
| Ford | 93rd–94th | 48 | 18 | 66 | 12 |
| Carter | 95th–96th | 13 | 18 | 31 | 2 |
| Reagan | 97th–100th | 39 | 39 | 78 | 9 |
| G. H. W. Bush1 | 101st–102nd | 29 | 15 | 44 | 1 |
| Clinton | 103rd–106th | 33 | 4 | 37 | 2 |
| Total | 1,481 | 1,069 | 2,550 | 106 |
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.