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.

[Texasforever]

Speaking of "long term"--How about judgment day when George W. has to explain how he violated an oath he took with God as his witness

That is quite possibly the dumbest comment yet. And given the competition that is saying a hell of a lot.

[TheGrimReaper]

BUMP for Mitch McConnell.
BUMP for the NRA.

[VRWC_minion]

How about judgment day when George W. has to explain how he violated an oath he took with God as his witness.

Pleas show us how he violated his oath. hint-you cannot.

[Texasforever]

Hey I love discussing the constitution with someone that does his research, and makes his points as you do. I am by no means an authority but I do try to learn and when putting forward an argument have at least a few points to back it up. You do the same and that makes it fun.

[madison46]

AND that is the truth. Same felt here. It is MUCH easier to communicate when there is some foundation in ones argument.

[VRWC_minion]

My points of view are just as valid as anyone's on this thread or website. I am sorry that what I say is such an irritant to your complacency. No bit of elitism on this thread is going to keep me off of it until I am good and ready.

My apologies if you think I want your views off. In fact these are the same views I had and posted right here up until last week when I read a comment by Freeper Billybob. (So, if I argued you should not be heard then I should argue I shouldn't be. )

His comment opened my eyes to the fact a sitting president has all kinds of power over laws beyond a veto. He expanded my narrow point of view to see a much wider range of options that can be played. These include having control over the process that determines the consitutionalty of the bill (His guy plays defense), having control over the regulations that enable the enforcement of the bill (hint=his people write them) and finally having the authority to use the equivalent of H-Bomb which is a prospective pardon for any and all acts related to the Ad ban.

And these are the one's I can come up with on my own. I can only imagine what other tools are available.

[Texasforever]

I guess why I am so condiment in the SC knocking this down is that any court that could call flag burning and Christ in a jar of urine "protected speech", will see this as a slam dunk.

[Renatus]

Pleas show us how he violated his oath. hint-you cannot.

Shucks! That's easy. Bush puts his hands on the bible and SWEARS BEFORE GOD that he will uphold and defend the Constitution.

Today he signs into law a bill that has within it many elements that are clearly unconstitutional. In essence he gave approval to them. One does not defend and uphold the constitution by participating in and establishing a law that violates what one has sworn to uphold.

[VRWC_minion]

Upholding the constitution can be done by signing the bill and seeing to it that the offensive parts are either declared UC or not enforced. Both are powers he has to uphold the costitution. There is no clause that says he must veto an UC bill.

Just because Bush found a different route to uphold the 1st amendment right doesn't mean he violated his oath.

[hchutch]

Same here. When's the game?

[RamsNo1]

The president violated his oath of office, swearing to, in part, protect the constitution. He violated his oath, his trust and his own principles by signing this bill. Bush knows it was wrong by the look I saw on his face this morning when the press questioned him about it. Better yet, he was questioned about the CFR signing on his way to an ironic SC campaign swing. Got to get all that funny money while you can before November. Oh wait a minute, I forgot, the law is going to be struck down.

[madison46]

Since CFR isn't an issue high in the public's mind, I usually say the same thing...I want my speech as protected as flag burning and porn ;-

g'night

[RamsNo1]

There are no dumb comments on this website, including your's. We are all just voicing our opinions.

[Texasforever]

No matter how many times you say it does NOT make it true. You never back up your assertions with facts, you just spew the mantra. You have lost, take your rope and go home, no one is following you.

[Texasforever]

There are no dumb comments on this website, including your's. We are all just voicing our opinions.

Trust me there are many dumb posts. Free speech allows them to be made but it also allows them to be challenged.

[rmlew]

1. Washington, Adams, and Madison all vetoed bills they considered unConstitutional for that reason. I think they understood the Constiution better than "Spitzer."
2. Nowhere in your crosspost was their anything that precluded any veto on Constitutional grounds.
3. Any good Constitutional Law professor will tell you that the Supreme Court is a law court, not a Constitutional Court. The court can only give rulings on individual laws and can only make judgements on cases. The USSC cannot declare laws unConstutional without a case, and thus are limited.
Nowhere does it say that the USSC is the final arbiter of the Constitution. As noted above, it can only give case law. Otherwise, the Constitution would be meaningless as a written document and exist only as USSC rulings. Congress has the right to again pass laws the USSC considers unConstutional.

[RamsNo1]

Excuse me, you are very offensive. Renatus, like you, is not dumb and I will not take my rope and go home. You have a right to your opinion as I do to mine. This website is not about winning and losing, it is about free speech.

[PsyOp]

Well, if we can't arrange something in Vegas, mabey we can start a thread of "liars poker" for them to participate in. That should be fun! Can you imagine the belly-aching that would come out of that?

But you said you only had a pair o Deuces!

I don't think they could grasp the concept.

[Texasforever]

Any good Constitutional Law professor will tell you that the Supreme Court is a law court, not a Constitutional Court. The court can only give rulings on individual laws and can only make judgements on cases. The USSC cannot declare laws unconstitutional without a case, and thus are limited.

The USSC is the supreme court in the land. Every decision they make must be based on cases alleging constitutional violations. They do not, with the exception of impeachment or Treason, try cases as other courts do, To say that the USSC is only a court of law is ridiculous. Should each branch have independent authority to declare constitutional any law they choose, with the force of law, then the government would be in chaos.

[Texasforever]

BTW, list those vetoes so we can discuss what eventually happened under different presidents and subsequent congresses. Thanks.