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.
Because anything he says will be quoted out of context and used against him by both sides in this fight.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution, although Congress is given the power to determine the size of the Court. The size of the court is set by Congress and currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.
Franklin D. Roosevelt came into conflict with the Supreme Court during his period in office. The chief justice, Charles Hughes, had been the Republican Party presidential candidate in 1916. Herbert Hoover appointed Hughes in 1930 and had led the court's opposition to some of the proposed New Deal legislation. This included the ruling against the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and ten other New Deal laws.
On 2nd February, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech attacking the Supreme Court for its actions over New Deal legislation. He pointed out that seven of the nine judges (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, Benjamin Cardozo and Pierce Butler) had been appointed by Republican presidents. Roosevelt had just won re-election by 10,000,000 votes and resented the fact that the justices could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.
The Constitution is deliberately inefficient.
The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers is also known as "Checks and Balances."
Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.
Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited by another branch.
For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.
All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.
The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks: The Legislative branch can override vetoes; can refuse to confirm appointments and reject treaties; can declare war; can impeach the President. The Judicial branch can declare Executive acts as unconstitutional.
The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks: The Executive can veto any bill and can call the Congress into session. The Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional. In addition, the two houses of Congress must agree on legislation, providing an internal check.
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks: The Executive appoints members. The Legislative can impeach judges and has approval power over Presidential appointments; it can also propose amendments to overturn judicial decisions.
Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.
History of the Veto
Tracing the veto back to the Roman Republic, Spitzer states that the veto was used by tribunes to protect plebeian interests from those of the patricians. And, as a result of their conquests, the concept of the veto was spread throughout Europe, eventually coming to be one of the last vestiges of power the British monarchs had over the law-making process.
From there the veto made its way to America. But due to the experiences the colonies had had with the veto, they initially made it unavailable to those in power. However, by the time the founders met in Philadelphia, the question was not whether or not to include the veto – or as it was known at the time, the negative – in the Constitution, but whether it should be absolute or qualified.
It should be noted, though, that the founders intended the veto not just as a block to bad legislation, but as a revisionary tool whereby the president and Congress could come to an agreement on a proposed bill. This revisionary intent is an aspect of the veto that has all but disappeared over the years.
40 posted on 3/26/02 5:52 PM Pacific by Texasforever [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Thank you Texasforever for this very useful bit of information. :o)
It will be wonderful day when this all plays out and we find out that this whole thing was just a clever political move to keep the Dems quiet, and further the conservative agenda behind the scenes. Everybody knows that refusing to sign this bill would be political suicide for GWB under the unwritten rules of the Beltway(unfortunate, but politics is still politics). Why NOT let the system kill the bill for him? It would be win/win for him and the GOP that way.
Time will tell.
That's intellectually dishonest, but certainly not surprising. I think I understand how my conservative Democrat friends felt with Clinton in office.
Yeah, that's what this is...it's a stealth plan to advance the cause of Conservatism by subverting the Constitution. Wow...what are you guys smoking?
Why do the good guys have to escape by the skin of their teeth!!!
I truly hope you don't really believe, the argument you
presented here. If you do, then I truly weep for our nation.
Makes me think I might have wasted 9 years 11 months and 16
days of my life, serving my country, in defense of the Constitution.
The USSC will be the final arbiter on whether CFR is constitutional or not. My bet is, they'll vote parts of it unconstitutional, like the issue ad ban. That will end CFR as an issue, for the foreseeable future. Hopefully, another thirty years will pass before this nonsense is raised again.
I don't see Teddy Roosevelt doing something like this.
Nor do I see Ronald Reagan doing it.
What you do is, you take a stand, you explain it to the American people, and you make it clear that you are STANDING UP FOR THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Then you point out that McCain is on a twenty-year guilt trip for his involvement in the Keating 5 scandal, and that that is what is motivating him.
Then you summarize by saying, 'I don't think American Citizens' rights of free speech should be sacrificed to atone for the corrupt actions of McCain and others who have tried to SUBVERT the election process in the past'.
I definitely would not have the 'surrender first' attitude that we should all worry and fret about who is going to twist what we say, EVEN BEFORE WE SAY IT! SHEESH!
Let them twist our words, we should be twisting their balls.
The spinelessness of some so-called Republicans really nauseates me.
And dude, I don't mean you, don't take offense.
I mean all the RNC people who REFUSE to STAND UP and LEAD.
All they do is try to anticipate how TV-addicted Rats will respond to the screed of Rather and his ilk.
It's one hell of a way to run a railroad, IMHO.
Bush has the people in the palm of his hand.
That's more than enough.
He needs to LEAD.
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.