Skip to comments.
U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law
Posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:01 PM PDT by RandDisciple
reported 15:38 bloomberg news
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bcra; campaignfinance; cfr; cfrlist; constitutionallaw; electionlaw; fec; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccain; mccainfeingold; mcconnell; misunderestimating; nra; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
To: RandDisciple
Which part?
2
posted on
05/02/2003 12:41:36 PM PDT
by
krb
(the statement on the other side of this tagline is false)
To: krb
Bet it's that waiting period.
To: arkfreepdom
bet it's the 60/90 ban....totally unconstitutional
4
posted on
05/02/2003 12:43:06 PM PDT
by
The Wizard
(Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
To: krb
I hope the part regarding not being able to have commerials 60 days prior to a general election. That is such an abridgement of freedom of speech, I could hardly believe it was signed by the President.
5
posted on
05/02/2003 12:43:13 PM PDT
by
mware
To: mware
Yup. I think McInsane and his media buddies are having a raging fit over this ruling. Too bad they can't read the First Amendment.
6
posted on
05/02/2003 12:44:49 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: RandDisciple
Post source or link to it, please.
-=I=-
7
posted on
05/02/2003 12:44:52 PM PDT
by
=Intervention=
(Proud Christo-het Supremacist!)
To: krb
Which part? The written one? :-)
8
posted on
05/02/2003 12:45:07 PM PDT
by
TonyInOhio
("Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur)
To: RandDisciple
Was there ever any doubt????
To: RandDisciple
Hopefully this "part" includes all 100%.
To: TonyInOhio
I think when they passed the bill they knew it would not hold muster under the Constitution. That is why they added that bit, that says if one part of the bill is unconstitutional they do not throw out the whole law.
11
posted on
05/02/2003 12:47:05 PM PDT
by
mware
To: The Wizard
Agreed..
12
posted on
05/02/2003 12:47:19 PM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
(Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
To: mware
try doing that to a partial birth abortion ban bill however...
13
posted on
05/02/2003 12:47:41 PM PDT
by
KantianBurke
(The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
To: RandDisciple
Oh YEAH!
To: RandDisciple
What court??
15
posted on
05/02/2003 12:48:35 PM PDT
by
Dog
(Please write your complaint legibly in that box - - - - - - - -->[ ].)
To: Congressman Billybob
ping
16
posted on
05/02/2003 12:48:59 PM PDT
by
kayak
(Pray for President Bush, our troops, and our nation!)
To: Congressman Billybob
Ping!
To: The Wizard
bet it's the 60/90 ban....totally unconstitutionalThat's what I meant. I agree it's totally unconstitutional. How could anything that disallows a citizen the right to speak out against a politician anytime be legal?
To: mware
That is why they added that bit, that says if one part of the bill is unconstitutional they do not throw out the whole law. I think there's some question whether that part itself is constitutional.
To: kayak
LOL - we're thinking alike.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson