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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[aristeides]

I thought Harold Ickes was from New York. And wasn't his father from Iowa?

[spunkets]

"Or does one have to play the game and take some risks."

The name of the game is now clear. It's called, "Bend Over".

[aristeides]

Sorry, I just wasn't thinking fast enough to realize you must have meant Erskine Bowles (sp?), who I believe is from NC.

[aristeides]

I was only half-listening to him, but I think Sean Hannity just said no radio station would accept such an ad, because of the risk.

[ptrey]

Perhaps Dubya should have vetoed the bill, but do you really think we needed an internal fight in the middle of the war on terrorism? He had every right to expect that the Justices would actually do their job instead of merely collecting a paycheck on the backs of the people they are so willing to betray.

JMHO...That was no excuse for him signing an un-constitutional bill, especially when he said he would veto such a bill when running for office. SHEESH...Don't think the dims will pull another "READ MY LIPS" using this next year? He better get his head out of Rove's rump and try to get legislation passed trying to overturn this 'rap. With all due respect, Will

[Who is John Galt?]

What a dumb question. Yes, of course [the Sedition Act was constituional]...

And on what basis do you make such a ludicrous assertion? Was the Sedition Act supposedly 'constitutional' because it did not violate your personal "principles?"

;>)

The remedy to a law you dislike is to follow the constitution or revolution.

I believe even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged that an unconstitutional law is not, in fact, a valid law. You seem to have trouble with that concept.

You have provided proof that we can enact bad constitutional laws and our constitution can still survive, correct itself and move on.

What do you mean by "bad constitutional laws?" Offensive to you, personally - or unconstitutional?

;>)

[Huck]

Sorry, but this is an infamous law and a stain on GWB's record, right up there with John Adams' signing of the Alient and Sedition Acts. Odious. Plenty of blame to go around. All three branches misfire. The states impotent. The people inattentive and uninformed.

[proud American in Canada]

"All three branches misfire. The states impotent. The people inattentive and uninformed."

yep...

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: "I have no doubt that Bill Clinton 'acted on principles,' and look what it got us."

MM: Well, I don't believe he did.

Of course he did - his over-riding 'principle' was 'Bill Clinton Comes First.'

You see, the principles I require of a President is adherence to the Constitution, as stated in the oath of office.

Then your 'principle of adherence to the Constitution' is actually no different than 'adherence to the Constitution' - and we may as well dispense with the excess verbiage...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Bump!

;>)

[borkrules]

So the 5-4 ruling for Bush over the Florida SC is unconsititutional too ?

Non sequitor.

And the answer to your specific question is "no".

[rundy]

I agree with stljoe71. Furthermore, rundy
is posting more items to his increasingly long
list of reasons to be most disappointed with Bush:

Here they are:

1. Support for the reverse discrimination of Title IX law.
2. Submission of the silly Global Warming paper to the UN.
3. Advancement of the no-drilling-for-oil-in-Florida idea, either
   off the coast or in the Everglades.
4. Passage of the bloated Farm Bill.
5. The No-Guns-In-The-Cockpit policy.
6. Campain Finance Reform.
7. The Education Bill.
8. Food Stamps for Illegal Immigrants.
9. Unemployment Extension.
10. Not fighting for Judge Pickering.
11. Nor fighting for New Jersey and Virginia Governors.
12. Dictation to Israel a reversal of the Bush Doctrine on Terrorism.
13. Steel Tariffs.   He finally fixed this one.
14. Federalizing airport security workers.
15. Reversal of welfare reform.
16. Open medical records.
17. Failing to take on Democrats regarding all of his judicial appointments.
18. Advancing and signing the bloated Medicare Bill.
19. Failing to VETO the Campaign Finance (McCain-Feingold) Bill as he
    indicated during the campaign. Now, look at what we have!

I'll never vote Democratic, but I've got to say,
I'm not sure we are a lot better off than had Gore been
elected. A Democratic agenda is being advanced at a
stunning rate under the name of Compassionate Conservatism.
It is now clear Compassionate Conservatism is not Conservatism
at all, it is Centrist Liberalism. I have to believe that
had Gore been elected the Republicans would be fighting
rather than supporting all of the legislation that
constitutes the typical Democratic agenda. The fact that the
media report that Bush is "stealing the Democrats' issues"
(read this as "buying votes with our tax money by advancing
Liberal social programs") is evidence that the Republicans
are moving the liberal agenda ahead at the expense of true
conservative values.

What ever happened to "limited government" and getting rid of
"big government" and "supporting and defending the Constitution?"
Thus, it seems that Compassionate Conservatism has driven a
stake into the heart of True Conservatism. This makes rundy sad.

"Is there anybody out there?"

[Congressman Billybob]

The in-your-face ad cannot be print media, or on the Internet. The ad ban is only against BROADCAST media -- radio or TV. Most people get their political information from TV, and the networks would run the ad FREE as a "controversial issue," so the original ad need only be on one local TV station.

I repeat, for those who missed it, that the TV station MUST run the ad and cannot censor it. (That's in the FEC law, as long as one of the people sponsoring the ad is a federal candidate.) I propose to put my neck on the line and do that -- though others elsewhere in the country could also do the same thing.

And the ad, of course, isn't an in-your-face challenge until 30 days before the appropriate primary, or 60 before the general.

John / Billybob

[billbears]

I assumed everyone had to agree 100% with you otherwise trhey should resign immediately

No, it just means they cannot assume to expect my vote. And after 2000, the Republicans can no longer can assume to expect my vote. I have chosen to vote for the conservatives that are running instead. In NC, some of those votes may be for Democrats, some may be for Republicans, some may be for neither. But you can be assured it will always be for a conservative candidate

[Dolphy]

If you want to talk about the President's accomplishments, feel free. Not sure why you're bothered if others stay on-topic, though.

While I am deeply appreciative for your permission to talk about the President's accomplishments, that wasn't my point. My reference was simply about a matter of perspective in formulating ones voting booth decision.

[IronJack]

Sounds to me like a lot of Bushbots owe the real conservatives here an apology.

But we're probably not privy to Lord Bush's Grand Eternal Plan, so we should just shut up and trust our betters.

[Congressman Billybob]

Problem solved. A candidate and 999 supporters "sign" the ad. They call themselves an "advocacy group" to challenge the law, but they include the candidate so the station MUST run the ad.

Ad ad run decades ago on a national radio network used the word "Bullsh*t" to describe the Republican and Democrat Parties jointly. The network HAD to run that ad for Barry Commoner, the Citizens Party candidate for President. A friend of mine wrote that ad. It got a ton of free ink. We can do the same, but without the bad language.

John / Billybob

[VRWC_minion]

And on what basis do you make such a ludicrous assertion? Was the Sedition Act supposedly 'constitutional' because it did not violate your personal "principles?"

No, because it was held constitutional by the process it that it self requires.

I believe even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged that an unconstitutional law is not, in fact, a valid law. You seem to have trouble with that concept.

I agree with him. However, the CFR law is now officially constitutional.

What do you mean by "bad constitutional laws?" Offensive to you, personally - or unconstitutional?

Offensive to me personally. There are quite a few constitutional laws that I disagree with and find repugnant, repulsive, oppressive etc. However, they are constitutional.

[hellinahandcart]

Pretty much sums it up doesn't he?

Yes, but he's obviously just one more Chicken Little. Overreacting for some unknown but doubtless self-serving agenda, just like Rush and Sean.

The hyenas on this thread have finally convinced me the sky isn't falling. I shouldn't be upset at all. I've only lost a few of my rights, not the whole shebang. It's okay. It'll be worth it in the end.

Law by whim is gonna be great. Wait and see, it'll be like riding a roller coaster. What fun!

I could just spit...

[IronJack]

We should have known from the crappy decisions last year that this court cannot be trusted to follow the constitution.

Nor, apparently, can "our" president.