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.

[Congressman Billybob]

Nope, the TV station that ran the ad would not be an "accessory." To the contrary, as I've noted in other posts on this thread, as long as a federal candidate is in the equation the station MUST carry the ad and cannot censor it.

John / Billybob

[Who is John Galt?]

Then again, it might not.

Scary, but true...

;>)

[NittanyLion]

Yes, of course. It would be constitutional. However, it would also be my right to revolt but its still constitutional.

So in your view, only government officials need read the Constitution. The Bill of Rights isn't so much a list of things guaranteed to the people and granted by the Creator, as it is some suggestions to the government as to how they should act. Suggestions which may be disregarded at anytime, assuming the government says so.

[jwalsh07]

"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."

To be specific, Marshall made it up and tried to force it on MAdison and Jefferson. Madison and Jefferson told Marshall where to stick Marburys commission. Marbury didn't get his commission but we got Mount SCOTUS.

[Sir_Ed]

"Our political issues and debates will be nothing more than tempests in teapots with the "press" trying to make them look important!"

We'll become like Europe or Canada...the politicians there are all the same shapeless grey mass, and they all adhere to the same "principles" of socialism, agnosticism and control of the masses.

We'll soon see what England and Canada now knows...thoughtcrime is doubleplusungood.

Ed

[CasearianDaoist]

As horrified as I am about this I think that McClellen's response is mostly ambiguous. I think that we should give the White House a day to respond. Below is what he actually said. If he is smart he will come out swinging. If he does not them you are absolutely correct in your judgement, IMHO at least. I cannot believe that there is any real energy for this in the swing voters or even the "useful idiot wing" of the Democratic Party. He should just come out and say that the whole thing was a screwup and then work to fix it. BTW, There is a brief but interesting interview of Ken Starr on the WP web site.

Ken Starr interview

From the White House site

Q Can you comment on the campaign finance ruling by the Supreme Court today upholding the ban on soft money contributions?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, the President supported the campaign finance legislation and signed it into law because he believes that overall it helped improve the system. And I think today's court ruling will help bring some clarity to the process. And our Counsel's Office will be reviewing this rather lengthy decision -- I think it's 119 pages -- so our Counsel's Office will be reviewing that decision.

[Burkeman1]

It says alot about Europe that the last interesting politician in Europe was the flamboyant Dutch Gay professor Pim Fortuyn before he was assassinated. And he was considered "Far Right" just because he wanted to restrict immigration from Arab lands even though he was a supreme liberal to socialist on every other issue.

[Lunatic Fringe]

There hasn't been a Constitution-minded President since the day McKinley was elected. The "modern" Presidents have all abused the power of their office, expanding the role of the Office well beyond Constitutional boundaries.

[michigander]

More Jefferson:

"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

[Paul C. Jesup]

The story of putting the frog in cold water and gradually turning up the heat comes to mind.

That has been proven to be a myth, a frog will sense the water temperture rising and jump out, no matter how slow you raise the temperture.

[Who is John Galt?]

To be specific, Marshall made it up and tried to force it on Madison and Jefferson...

And both Madison and Jefferson opposed the ridiculous notion, noting the danger inherent in the suggestion that the federal government be allowed to determine the extent of its own powers. John Taylor of Caroline observed that the power to interpret the Constitution could never be separated from the power to amend it, or the power to amend would be completely destroyed (because any amendment could simply be 'interpreted' out of existence). The Constitution is quite clear regarding the power to amend – but it nowhere says the federal courts shall have the final say in constitutional interpretation...

;>)

[El Gato]

Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); nude dancers, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560 (1991) (plurality opinion); pornographers, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002); flag burners, United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310 (1990); and cross burners, Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. ___ (2003).

Sounds like Justice Thomas is as bitter about this as many on this forum. Yours truly included. He certainly gets right to about how crazy the decision is in light of the other fairly recent, decisions of the court.

[El Gato]

Cause 3 old men and 2 old women in black robes say it is? That seems to be the standard these days. No bother about what those dead white guys, many of them slaveholders, wrote back in the late 18th century.

Welcome to the 21st Century, but better buckle up, it's going to be a rough ride.

[Huck]

Long time no see ;-)

[Spiff]

That has been proven to be a myth, a frog will sense the water temperture rising and jump out, no matter how slow you raise the temperture

So, apparently the average frog is smarter than the average sheeple. Figures...

[rustbucket]

...we got Mount SCOTUS

You are right about that. From John Taylor: "Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?"

IMO, the Constitution should be supreme over the court.

[Who is John Galt?]

"...would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Thank you...

;>)

[Amerigomag]

But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them

Bush can either cooperate with the courts or he can choose to ignore their ruling. It will be interesting to see which tact he takes.

I'm hoping he chooses the later and refuses to investigate allegations.

[Revel]

" Is the country more socialist today than it would have been had Al Gore been elected with a Democrat Congress?"

Yes we know the answer. And most who were adamant about expressing what was happening are no longer here.

[Huck]

but it nowhere says the federal courts shall have the final say in constitutional interpretation...

Boy we've discussed this one at length, eh WIJG? So...spell it out. What would the next steps be? For a state government of prominence to draft resolutions expressing great outrage?