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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Howlin]

And you also tried to discourage anyone from fighting it at the time. You just essentially admitted what I said.

Only in your "true conservative" mind.

You'll pardon me if I don't put too much credence in a poster who admitted up the thread you don't think Jesse Helms is a conservative enough.

[woodyinscc]

Three letters, quick, succinct, and unequivocal.!!

[Howlin]

The man knows his stuff.

[Hoverbug]

Yes.

Let's see if Jim sides with the Supreme Court and Bush here too.

Hb

[FreeReign]

There's no right to life in the Constitution?

The Constitution grants no rights, it only attempts to guarantee the inalienable rights granted us by God by providing for a very limited government with very specific powers.

Strike that -- that's not what I meant.

There's no protection of the unalienable right to life in the Constitution?

[PhiKapMom]

I am looking forward to hearing what CB has to say because some of what I have read on here is mind boggling. Still trying to figure out how MY own PERSONAL free speech has been infringed.

It is obvious from reading that most of this thread is all about Bush bashing. Wonder how many on here have actually been involved helping in political campaigns because some of the comments I have read strike me as not having much political savvy behind them or a lesson in how to lose an election.

Prefer the facts without the spin or the usual I am not voting for Bush because (fill in the blank!).

[Howlin]

I haven't seen one person here side with the Supreme Court. Not one.

[PhiKapMom]

Jesse Helms not conservative enough --- ROFLOL!!!!!!!! That is hilarious! I am sitting here chuckling at that one! Credibility for that poster -- down the drain!

[Hoverbug]

Look again.

Hb

[woodyinscc]

The Solicitor General to SCOTUS, Ted Olson thought it was unconstitutional, and probably still does. Every lawyer I have talked to in the last two yrs. has told me the 60 day provision would get tossed. Even though it did not, your argument is specious.!

[Howlin]

Why don't you point some out..........ones that are supporting the Supreme Court.

[Howlin]

Quite amazing, isn't it? And it's lecturing moi! Go figure.

[PhiKapMom]

Republicans argued against sections of this CFR bill being constitutional and lost some of those arguments it seems. Difference between them and the anti-Bush crowd on here is that instead of whining they didn't get their way, they are rolling up their sleeves to find ways to work around this decision.

I certainly did not see anyone agree with the ruling but a lot of people feel that we lost the ruling so now find a way around it including the NRA out looking to buy a media outlet.

[Hoverbug]

Are you going to vote for Bush in 04?

Hb

[Revel]

I admitted no such thing. And I am not in a positon to comment on that without doing research. I used to think some people were conservative who turned out to be sell outs. He definately did some good things. I appreciate his support of the boy scouts. He may be a good conservative. I just don't know enough about him.

[wgeorge2001]

This is the death of America's constitutional republic and the beginning of communism supported by all three branches of government.
America is a vestige of a once free nation and has entered into the dark days of persecution from the fascist left wing who are effectively destroying everything good in America; conservatism is no longer represented by the two largest political parties in the United States.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

[Howlin]

Is that an answer to my request for you to point out some of the posters who are supporting the Supreme Court decision?


If it is, you really haven't quite gotten the hang of this forum, have you?

[tpaine]

Not at issue.

That is precisely the issue. I invite you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation.

Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.

Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it, James Madison couldn't find it - and I doubt Thomas Paine could have found it, either. Have at it..

Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that? <
Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.
If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law;
the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory.

It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.
But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution...."

______________________________________

John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.

[PhiKapMom]

The lecturing is hilarious from someone who never heard of most of the people!

[onyx]

OMG! Give it a rest. Jesse Helms was Senator Conservative.

Please quit before you're beaten to a pulp.