How long will it take to be heard and dealt with? If a Judge finds it unconstitutional and the President does not protest the Judge's decision, its essentially dead, is'nt it?
The bill has a provisional clause, only the parts that affect the First Amendment will be thrown out. And yes, those parts will be dead.
"The Constitution and the Supreme Court are clear on this subject. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition ... for a redress of grievances." This applies to organization, speech, and political activity.
The court has called voting "the most basic right," because all other rights depend on it. It has also said "freedom of expression" is essential to elections.
Two cases predict what the Supreme Court would do. In First Nat'l Bank vs. Bellotti, 1978, the court struck down a Massachusetts ad ban against corporations in referendum elections. A bank concerned with a tax referendum won the right to publish its views. In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, 1976, the court struck a Virginia ban against druggists advertising their prices.
In Bellotti, it was not the speech of citizens, but merely of a corporation. In Virginia Pharmacy, there was no political content. Still, the court called the ban "highly paternalistic," concluding that the First Amendment has "made the choice" between "suppressing information" and the "dangers ... if it is freely available."
In dozens of cases, political speech by citizens is the most protected right in what Thomas Jefferson called "the marketplace of ideas."
This will not be a narrow decision, split between "conservative" and "liberal" justices. Such analysis is irrelevant here.
Concerning abortion, the ad ban equally silences National Organization for Women and Right to Life. It equally tells Hand Gun Control and National Rifle Association to sit down and shut up. Every organization, on all sides of every issue, is equally silenced by this bill.
Attempts to stifle political speech always attract strange bedfellows. This writer was part of the planning of Buckley vs. Valeo, 1976, which successfully challenged the first campaign finance "reform" act. The general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the legal director of ACLU were together in that group. Today, NRA and ACLU will challenge this act.
Court action will be prompt. Like the 1974 act, the current bill provides that legal challenges go to the three-judge court, then to the Supreme Court, and should be "accelerated on the dockets." Buckley went from trial to final decision in just six months. This case may move even faster.
A slam dunk...how much you wanna bet Bush is behind this all the way....behind the scenes of course.
Then it goes directly to the Supreme Court. It will be accelerated. 4 months, tops, to the decision.
This will not end with the lower court's decision, whatever that is. It WILL go to the Supreme Court. And, when it gets there, I will file one of the briefs against this law.
Both links below deal with this subject.
Congressman Billybob
Dubya is one smart politician. At first take, I wished he would have slammed-dunked this anti first amendment CFR sham.
But, he has learned "wisely" during his Yale days in the "Skulls and Bones"....he set up the democRATS and McPain for a Supreme Court rejection in their attempted usurpation of the Constitution. He wins on both side.
Mustang sends.