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.
That's not true. Many of the Founders believed the SCOTUS ought to be the final arbiter, short of revolution, but as the Virginia Resolutions show, they believed states could make Constitutional appeals to the Federal government. In fact, there are many cases of Presidents weighing the Constituionality of their actions. If your theory were true, Congress could enact a law to create a monarchy with Steve Buscemi as King, and the President would not be empowered to object on Constituional grounds. He could only challenge the law in court. I don't think that's how it works. I think parts of this law are "palpably unconstitutional", to use Madison's phrase, and the President, or the States, who are the parties to the compact, have means of redress without resort to the SCOTUS.
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.
This enquiring mind wants to know - is that a rug? Am I the only who doesn't know the answer to that question?
Hey, Retired Army, you need to look at what Bush did as an area-denial operation. It was well known to the cabinet that this was going to be challenged by the Senator, and that it stood little chance of standing up under court scrutiny. If he had vetoed it, Fat Teddy and Damned Daschle would have a field-day with issue in the upcomming election, not to mention McCain. By signing it he took the issue away from them. Why fall on your sword for something that will be struck down anyway? Is that a sound military strategy? No. And neither is it a sound political strategy.
The corollary to Clauswitz famous axiom is that "politics is war by alternate means." You win not just by standing your ground, but by choosing the right ground to stand on. Keep the faith.
From a fellow former Army Maverick.
LOL if true...
Congressman: What does that MSNBC report mystery-ak refers to mean? Is this the plan you mentioned earlier in effect or not?
The Constitution says not a word about the Supreme Court determining whether or not something is Constitutional. That idea came about with the Marbury vs. Madison decision. That used to be taught in every HS civics class in the country; isn't it taught anymore?
The President swears an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. How does signing a blatantly unconstitutional law do that?
But why be passive and silent on this issue?
Why not comment on it publicly, instead of avoiding ANY mention on this issue?
To say the least, this is not a show of leadership on Bush's part.
He looks wimpy and confused on this issue.
He also ought to take the opportunity to crack on McCain at the same time, by vetoing this garbage.
But why would the founding fathers have bothered making the veto and override provisions in the Constitution, if the President was supposed to head for the tall grass every time a veto was needed?
Bush needs to show some intellect, leadership and courage on this issue.
Issues like this are the means by which he can define himself and show leadership.
His polls are great, swell.
But guess what?
Most issues are not going to be handed to him on a silver platter the way 9/11 was.
The fallout from 9/11 is not going to last forever, and it should not be the benchmark issue for the Republican Party.
Lastly, I would remind everyone that the election of 2000 is a sign of things to come.
We need to have every ounce of ammo possible when it comes to defeating Rats, and this bill ties the hands of the good guys, not the Rats.
Look at who is opposing the CFR, for crying out loud?
Is NOW opposing it, is the ACLU opposing it?
SHEEEEEEEEEESH!
We watched Mitch on C-Span explaining every detail of what went into the CFR so even a child would understand, it just has us stumped that it was signed as is.
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.