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.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Not really, I view the events of this country as not a frog in boiling water, but a boiling cocked kettle ready to explode. I figure the only thing that everyone is waiting for is for a President to be 'appointment' (after today's ruling, I don't feel 'elected' is the right word anymore) that people truly hate, like Hillary.

[Reagan Renaissance]

"..a decision of over 300 pages."

The clarity and quality of the opinion are inversely proportional to the number of pages. Instead of the US Supreme Court, henceforth, it will be known as the BS Supreme Court. As for the Constitution, we should look for it in the justices' private toliet.

Will bleach remove the brown stains?

[Who is John Galt?]

Long time no see ;-)

I'm following in the footsteps of the Jeffersonian republicans: building a barn, digging a lot of post holes, and debating constitutional issues in my spare time.

How the heck are you?

;>)

[McGavin999]

There will always be another opportunity to fix this law, there won't be many chances to fix the terrorists. First things first. Free speech doesn't really mean much if you're dead.

Besides, this law does not prohibit people who get together and run an ad, it merely stops you if your are incorporated. I heard a member of the FEC explaining some of the law in Special Report. The law sucks but it's not as bad as most fear. It still needs to be revoked.

[Revel]

" This is pathetic. SCOTUS once again is the tyrants in black robes."

Beware of anything going to SCOTUS these days. It is the last thing you want to happen. A courrupt court making making final un repealable desisions....No Thanks.

[Who is John Galt?]

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.

"You are right about that!"

;>)

[El Gato]

I'm not really fond of the UN controling all of the US

But European/Africans/Asians/Whatevers in Blue Helmets make such wonderfull rifle targets.

[tpaine]

Justice Scalia observed:

"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."

Almost two centuries ago, a Jeffersonian republican asked a simple question:

Is the Constitution supreme over the court, or the court supreme over the Constitution?

_____________________________________


jwalsh07 wrote:

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.

---

Actually Scalia is wrong and so are you two.

Marshall said that acts repugnant to our constitutuion are void.

IE, -- the simple words of the Constitution are supreme over ~everyone~ ; -- courts, legislatures, and the executive.
Marshall didn't 'make it up' he reasoned that:

"-- it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. ---
--- Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

John Marshall, 1803

_________________________________________


Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

[Revel]

"Do you think Clarence Thomas is overreacting? Read #280."

Thomas is not the saint everyone thinks he is. I have seen him say some pretty lame things in some of his decisions too. He may be better than most of them, but he has some issues.

[Who is John Galt?]

What would the next steps be? For a state government of prominence to draft resolutions expressing great outrage?

Let's consider that idea. If Texas, for example, 'drafted resolutions expressing great outrage' - and refused to enforce a blatantly unconstitutional law - what do you think would happen? Would the President send in the federal military to occupy the State? Or would Congress be more likely to repeal portions of the offending legislation?

;>)

[El Gato]

This does not apply to you personally, only your issue advocacy group. Anyone here can still walk into a TV station, cut a check from their personal funds and run an attack ad. Not that I'm defending this total piece of crap from the court, but the decision only affects groups, not you personally.

That's just jolly. So George Soros can buy an attack add, but I can't get together with a few tens of thousands of my closest friends and do the same?

It's not just the freedom of speech and press clauses of the first amendment that they ripped up, but in effect the assembly and petition parts as well.

[Revel]

"That deserved big bold lettering. People's freedom of speech have not been stopped by this bill -- never was and never will be. Like you said, they can write any amount of check they want to buy an add. Move-On.org cannot to put in perspective. Thanks for posting this!"

And I suppose that Free republic can't run full page adds in the newpapers anymore either. It is about time that people stop chilling and start objecting. Pretty soon it will too late.

[Spiff]

Not really, I view the events of this country as not a frog in boiling water, but a boiling cocked kettle ready to explode. I figure the only thing that everyone is waiting for is for a President to be 'appointment' (after today's ruling, I don't feel 'elected' is the right word anymore) that people truly hate, like Hillary.

As long as the average Joe Sixpack and Suzy Soccermom can get fastfood, hit the ATM 24/7, receive 500+ channels by satellite, and get public schools to babysit/raise their kids every day, etc. then things will pretty much continue to deteriorate. They are oblivious to the trap that is being sprung around them. I've seen these slaves trapped in the Matrix, living each day out completely unaware - I'm related to some of them. Hillary could be elected and they'd just shrug and go back to the NASCAR race or the Home Shopping Network - ignorance is bliss.

[El Gato]

Ok can someone clear it up for me. According to the law post SCOTUS decision, can moveon.org still produce attacks ads for radio and tv ads 60 days in, but noone else can?

They can't either, but George Soros personally can. Cut out the intermediary and save some bucks, to spend on more adds of course.

[JCEccles]

So George Soros can buy an attack add, but I can't get together with a few tens of thousands of my closest friends and do the same?

That's exactly what it means.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Your confusing Urbanites and Ruralites.

The Ruralites (the ones with most of the guns in this country) were about ready to revolt if Gore stole the election in 2000. Also, the Urbanites are so braindead most of them don't know which end to stick on the toilet most of the time

[Who is John Galt?]

Mr. Justice Scalia: ”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."

tpaine: Actually Scalia is wrong...

Are you suggesting that ‘the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means?’ Or are you suggesting that the Constitution says ‘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?’

If Mr. Scalia missed something in that regard, I will be happy to stop quoting him...

;>)

[July 4th]

Yup, that's the problem. Freepers want to get together, they can't. But Babs, and Cher, and Martin Sheen can each spend to their heart's content.

[Revel]

"What a wonderful avenue this is for the Bush haters here."

You mean those who actually love there country and Constitution. I don't think people hate Bush per say. I know I don't. I just hate his socialism and his lack of respect for the Constitution, bill of rights and so on. I have not trusted him since he shut down all the investigations on Clinton. And since then there have been many situations that have shown that he is no conservative. He actually does seem like a nice guy. But that is not protecting the rights given by our founders. And our founders and the people who influenced them knew far well the results of not having those rights. We are ignorant of what will come, but we are going to find out what it was like before there ever was a USA, because the protections are going to disappear.