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.

[anniegetyourgun]

Well maybe you can work for the Gore campaign in 2004.

[hoosiermama]

Please check out JohnHuang2 post number 351 on last nights, The day in the life of... "W"
I promise you'll feel better.

[Redleg Duke]

Your assumption of a loss is suspect.

[1L]

Anyone in the know is well aware that the courts will shoot down any parts that are unconstitutional.

I think it is dangerous strategy to depend on the courts to sort this thing out.

[1L]

Your assumption of a loss is suspect.

How could it be anything but?

[RetiredArmy]

I don't stop underestimating anyone pal. But, I do quit blindly following anyone who refuses to support the very oath he swore to protect the Constitution. That may not affect your thought process one damned bit, but by cracky it does mine! So, screw your dreams. I know what my actuals are, not dreams. A true dream would be all the socialist dried up and blew away today, but that also is not going to happen!

[PsyOp]

On the whole I would agree with you. But in this case Bush did not have much choice. The Dems painted him into a corner and thought they had him check-mated with a damned if you do - damned if you don't situation. That is why the poison pill language was inserted and why McConnel and others so publicly pronounced their intention to challenge this in the Supreme court. They were providing cover for the president which allowed him to out-manuever Daschle and his band of miserable miscreants. If he'd vetoed it we would never hear the end of it.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

What I mean is best stated here: ***George W. Bush: Master Politician and Great American*** within the first two posts.

FreeGards

BM

[rmlew]

Thank you for quoting from a textbook.
Shall I quote from some of mine. (The ones that say that the US was responsible for Pearl Harbor, or the ones that say that the Constitution is based on the Iriqouis confederation.)
I look at the Federalist papers and the Constitution.

[caddie]

If you are right, and this comes to pass, hobbes, great.

But Murphy's law is a Republican axiom.

This sort of sophisticated Constitutional gavotte by Bush, McCain, McConell, the Supremes, and the Rats, is more intricate than a June Taylor Dance routine on the old Jackie Gleason Show.

And there's many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip.

I would be surprised if this elegant bit of subterfuge on the GOP's part worked out so well, when, as you know, the most basic, obvious, fundamental things that conservatives deserve, the GOP can almost never deliver.

This is a long, long shot, and sets a bad precedent.

But if it works, I will be the first to acknowledge that you are a better statesman than I.

This time, at least, Bush, et al., may have gotten away with it, you guys were right, and I was just a Nervous Nellie.

[hobbes1]

Hardly a long shot. this is almost a 9-0.

The five that decided for, In Bush V. Gore, Plus at least Stevens, Souter, and if Breyer comes along Ginsburg will not stand 8-1.

[Redleg Duke]

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I am also entitled to my dreams. You can try cleaning up your damned mouth too. Next time, get your damned head out of the breach before the loader yells "UP!".

[caddie]

Thanks hm. JH2 did a very good post, but I wish W and his administration would throw us conservatives a bone and demonstrate, by leak, FR post, or whatever, that he actually HAS the 'vision' thing that JH2 imputes to him.

It sure doesn't look like it from my side of the pipe.

We get absolutely nothing conservative-sounding out of him, and, I am concerned that his indifference to the right, shared by X41, will decrease his chances for reelection, as it did for X41 (you may recall).

You illustrious FReepers (no sarcasm, I really mean it) are to be commended for being steadfast supporters of W, and perhaps I am too skeptical.

But I wish once in a while Bush would appeal to us conservatives, who are the group he needs to work on before 2004.

Because I really don't think he needs to worry about you guys's votes.

But if he could peel off a few more percentage points from the honked-off right, and the nonbraindead Libertines, he might just find winning easier.

Respectfully, caddie

[hoosiermama]

Caddie, He's trying to. By appointing conservative judges (which may be many due to the health, age etc of the current bench)....... He cannot do that unless there is support from the congress. As I said before is will be RINO and conservatives against all RATS. If you want a conservative bench. You'll have to support some RINO's too. That's just the way the ball bounces. If you don't support them the rats win and the conservative lose. The higher the number of Rino AND conservatives elected to the congress will be reflected in his Sepreme Court appointives. I'm not saying I like it either but that's a fact!

[supercat]

Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional instead of leaving it up to the branch our forefathers determined was empowered to do.

The President has the authority to veto any legislation which comes before him for any reason whatsoever. Are you suggesting that such authority only applies to bills which are constitutional, and that the President is required to sign the unconstitional ones!?

[supercat]

If any president enforces existing laws such as the Brady Bill when they are on record as saying it is an infringement on the 2nd amendment then they are also in violation of their oath.

If a President fails to enforce a law because he thinks it's may be unconstitional, then if the law in question was constititional he has just violated his oath of office. While you are correct that a President is duty-bound to refuse enforcement of statutes he knows for a certainty to be unconstitutional, a President is generally expected to yield such determinations to the Court.

By contrast, however, a President may freely veto legislation because he thinks it might be unconstititional, or because the copy before him is printed in an annoying typeface, or for any other reason, without risking violation of his oath of office. Because he is under no obligation to sign legislation, he is duty-bound to veto any legislation he believes is likely contrary to the Constitition.