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.
Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)
As many of you know, one of your colleagues, Congressman Billybob (John Armor, Esq., in real life) will file one of the briefs in the US Supreme Court in opposition to Shays-Meehan.
He will file it on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, which believes in protecting and enforcing the Constitution as written. One of its Advisory Board members is the Hon. Robert Bork.
This brief does not depend on your responses to this notice. It will be filed in any event. But all FReepers who wish to play a role in the effort to have Shays-Meehan declared unconstitutional, are invited to contribute what they choose to the ACRU. It is a tax-deductible, legal charity.
All who contribute at least $25 will receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Please visit the ACRU site to confirm that their vision of the Constitution is the same as yours, and the same as that of Jim Robinson and FreeRepublic.
Then if you wish to help, mail your checks to:
American Civil Rights Union 3213 Duke Street Number 625 Alexandria, VA 22314
Be sure to include your name and address if you wish to receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Write "FreeRepublic" on the memo line of your check so we know you responded to this appeal. Include your screen name if you would like to be thanked publicly on this thread. Do NOT send any contributions greater than $100. Reserve such large donations for FreeRepublic.
You will NOT get on any mailing list, snail mail, e-mail, or otherwise, by responding to this request. All information will be kept in strict confidence, unless you include your screen name so you can be thanked on this thread by that name.
By the way, the ACRU was the client for the very successful brief also filed by Congressman Billybob in the Bush/Florida case. The text of that brief was posted on FreeRepublic in December, 2000.
If you have any questions about this message, please contact: congressmanbillybob@earthlink.net
Thank you for your consideration of this request for help. (Both Congressman Billybob and the American Civil Rights Union are entirely independent of FreeRepublic. However, this request is being posted with the permission of Jim Robinson.)
Whine whine pi$$ and moan pi$$ and moan,
you don't like this damn thing...fine put your money where your mouth is.
To quote the old saying, 'Talk is cheap.
By design and definition.
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.
Does the USSC have a right to declare any legislation illegal? No.
It cannot rule on internal resolutions or organizational matters. Nor can it decide on any law it wants to. Instead, cases must be brought to it. Thus it is a law court.
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.
Huh? Presidents veto bills all the time. You are just wrong.
Spoken like a true Clintonite.
Reminds me of the Media Research Center's winner for Quote of the Year [Dan Rather]:
Bill O’Reilly: "I want to ask you flat out, do you think President Clinton’s an honest man?"
Dan Rather: "Yes, I think he’s an honest man."
O’Reilly: "Do you, really?"
Rather: "I do."
O’Reilly: "Even though he lied to Jim Lehrer’s face about the Lewinsky case?"
Rather: "Who among us has not lied about something?"
O’Reilly: "Well, I didn’t lie to anybody’s face on national television. I don’t think you have, have you?"
Rather: "I don’t think I ever have. I hope I never have. But, look, it’s one thing – "
O’Reilly: "How can you say he’s an honest guy then?"
Rather: "Well, because I think he is. I think at core he’s an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
Yes they do however their VETO is does not carry past their term if a different president and congress decide to un-veto it.
give me ONE example of a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the court that is in effect in ANY local, state or Federal jurisdiction.
Texasforever responded:
Yes they do however their VETO is does not carry past their term if a different president and congress decide to un-veto it.
Exactly. This holds true for the Supreme court too.
I hope you are indicating the stupidity of this idea through sarcasm.
The Supreme Court has reversed itself plenty of times.
The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution. When the court rules against the constitutionality of a statute or an executive action, its decision can be overcome only if the Constitution is amended or if the court later overrules itself or modifies its previous opinion. The decisions are not confined to the specific cases, but rather are intended to guide legislatures and executive authority; thereby they mold the development of law. Thus, in the U.S. governmental system the Supreme Court potentially wields the highest power.
The Supreme Court, however, has found many constitutional limitations on its powers, and has voluntarily adopted others so as not to interfere unduly with the other branches of government or with the states. Though there are some notable exceptions, the court has a standing policy of eschewing political disputes, i.e., issues that are considered to be policy matters of legislative or executive authorities. In 1962 the court, over protests that it was entering a "political thicket, ruled in Baker v. Carr that the legislatures of several states must correct imbalances in representation between rural and urban areas. The court rarely attempts to infringe upon the power of the President over foreign affairs. Self-imposed restraints, observed only intermittently, include consideration of a constitutional issue only if the case cannot be considered on other grounds, and the formulation of constitutional decisions in the narrowest terms.Membership
Makes more sense to me to run your beer through a horse first.
Bush foolishly yields power (that we the voters gave him on election day) to the Supremes, some of whom were appointed by Clinton, or sure act like it.
This is why Bush is a wimp who is letting down the conservatives, yet another time.
Plus, he is weakening the Presidency for the next person who gets it.
And may be permanently strengthening the Krazo Supreme Court.
Not good for America, IMHO.
Do you believe this to be the first constitutionally questionable bill ever signed into law?
Thank God for the fact that we HAVE a Supreme Court, a place where a citizen CAN go and challenge the government and stand on equal grounds with the powerful.
Where would we be without them?
For a relatively intelligent forum, we get alot of reactionaries, that seem to not think through things like this....
Yes, most of the Bill is unconstitutional, So what happens if Bush Vetoes it? The bill gets packed away in Dassholes desk drawer until....A new president comes along and will sign it, and for his trouble, the biggest 2 proponents of the bill,McAnus, and the Mainstream media, Bash the living crap out of him, rekindle their love affair, give him an asspain primary in'03-'04, and use the issue to cost him ground in the middle against his Dem opponent in '04.
OTOH, sign the Bill, The media is happy, McCain has NO SIGNATURE ISSUE to push himself into the Primaries, or to draw media attention, and when the Court shreds the bill, it will be DEAD. Not Vetoed and Waiting for another President.
Your way stalls the passing of the bill, His way Kills it, and helps to solidify Conservative Ground for the Next 2 election cycles.
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.