Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[concerned about politics]

I was here when this forum was dedicated to freedom and supporting the Constitution, not a stupid George W. Gore cheerleading squad.

This is a good thread for the "Bush Bash" crowd.
Odd, though, how they leave out the vemonous spew for all those in the house and Senate. You'd think Bush was responsible for the Black plague, too!

[ImpBill]

" Yet he still signed it."

Yes he did and in violation of his Oath of Office to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution it is written:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."

GW said upon many occasions he did not support McCain/Fiengold CFR and yet signed the bill anyway. He either had a instant epiphany or he ignored his Constitutional duty and oath of office to pass the buck to the judiciary who have now affirmed the bill and ipso facto made it a part of US Law.

This fiasco squarely rests at the feet of "our" President George W. Bush.

[VRWC_minion]

Your interpretation of Article I is quite broad. You should read it. It mentions the "time, place and manner" of elections

I agree the SC's interpretation is too broad. The point is there is tension between two constitutional issues. Its not black and white like some of those in hysterics claim.

[Stopislamnow]

yup

Now, what we gonna do about it?

[oceanview]

until the 9th circuit rules that the internet is no different then broadcast media, give it a few months for the case to make its way up there.

[MineralMan]

"I hearby pledge to form a small group - one who would be covered by this law - and to run a political ad in a local paper against the representative(s) of our choice within 60-days of the first speech-restricted election. "

That paper will refuse to accept the ad, though. The papers and other media are going to understand how this works, even if you don't.

[Congressman Billybob]

I don't have the temperament to be a judge. When the average lawyer spouted the average bullsh*t in front of me, I would throw my gavel at him and tell him to get out of my courtroom. In most courts, that is considered unaccepatble behavior. LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[Protagoras]

There is no one word within this law stating that you can't "criticize the government."

LOL,, good one. I knew you had a sense of humor.

You can't speak out within 60 days of an election, but you think that someone would be able to run an ad on TV criticizing the government? Man, this is good stuff.

[Howlin]

Libertasia facts
Population
Citizens: 550
Hamsters: 132


ROFLMAO..........good luck to all 682 of you!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those things you describe are examples of welfarism not socialism.

Stopping attack ads will do little to stifle free speech or criticism.

Most of your fears are unjustified extrapolations with no evidence to back them up.

[oceanview]

LET? How did we LET the new york times be taken over by liberals?

[B Knotts]

My rhetoric is intended to remind Republicans that they are supposed to act like Republicans, not Democrats.

Refusing to criticize one's own party when it deserves criticism helps no one.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And what electable candidate do you support?

[Howlin]

(Daschle was running the Senate and threatening to hold up all legislation).

Exactly. It was the first piece of legislation Little Tommy brought to the floor after Jeffords jumped.

Wonder why?

[Cboldt]

McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf)

The opinion is up at the Supreme Court website. Apologies if the link has already been posted.

[Who is John Galt?]

See...that's the problem. We can't be sure what these black-robed dictators will do once they're confirmed.

The idea of an inerrant judiciary was flawed from the beginning - and recognized as such:

"...(I)t is objected, that the [federal] judicial authority is to he regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution...

"...(T)he proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution... supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other [federal] departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution...

"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the [federal]government; not in relation to the rights of the [States as] parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."

James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, 1800

The high court ruling does indeed appear to "sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution." Virginia and Kentucky led the opposition to the 'palpably unconstitutional' Alien and Sedition Acts - but I doubt we'll see even a single State object to this. Let's hope the Constitution is not 'subverted forever'...

;>)

[Area51]

And people think it's not important for Bush to be reelected?

We have GOT to get some of our people on THIS Supreme Court!

52 posted on 12/10/2003 7:24:02 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Why ol Wise one would we want to do that? HE SIGNED THE FREAKING BILL INTO LAW!

So you are saying we need to re-elect Jorge Delano Bush so he can nominate a RINO Like Souter (Because he sure won't fight forcefully for a Conservative Judge) that the Congress will approve of so he can do what? Uphold laws that Jorge Delano Bush Signs that violate MY constitutional rights or throw them out?

Either way AMERICA loses because a COWARD in the White House is affraid of upsetting the likes of Ted Kennedy by respecting and PROTECTING our rights.

He sold america out by signing that Law. I can't wait for him to show his spine with the AWB.

[Sabertooth]

I was one of the "experts" who confidently predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down major portions of this law. I believed that at least five Justices would follow their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

However, I stated a consequence of my being wrong. I said I would resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court if "we" (meaning all the lawyers against this law) failed to get major parts of this law chucked in the trash.

Well, that's a drag.

I wasn't confident. The SCOTUS almost always upholds restrictions on political speech, when those restrictions relate to campaign finance.

For my part, I won't hold you to your rash promise. Maybe you should run a thread and let the posters weigh in.

[JustAnAmerican]

My mistake the vote by the House was 240 yay, 189 nay. Even more of a un-overridable Veto, if Bush had Vetoed it.

[concerned about politics]

Yes he did and in violation of his Oath of Office to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Wow! You've already read the 300 pages of this judicial decision? Please, fill us in. What exactly did the court have to say about CFR?

Will all the members of the house and Senate that signed the bill be impeached? The judges? All of them? You're right, and they're all wrong! Wow. Impressive!