Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)
FOX News
| 10 Dec 2003
| FOX News
Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th
Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bcra; blackrobedictators; bush; bushscotuscfr; cfr; elitisttyrants; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccainfeingold; nyt; oligarchy; restrictfreespeech; scotus; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,881-1,900, 1,901-1,920, 1,921-1,940, 1,941-1,949 last
To: Who is John Galt?
...and, of course, pardon the typo...
;>)
1,941
posted on
12/18/2003 5:50:35 PM PST
by
Who is John Galt?
("Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." --Paul Begala, 1997)
To: Who is John Galt?
Freedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The "press" is TOTALLY unaffected. What part of these simple realities are over your head?
1,942
posted on
12/22/2003 9:12:22 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: Eastbound
That article is a great example of NOISE in the tent. It just repeats false statements many of which we have seen here. BUT at least it seems to understand that the "press" is TOTALLY unaffected by this law.
Where do people get the idea that the electronic media is outside government regulation? After all the broadcast rights are GRANTED by government. No one just decides they are going to start a tv station then begins broadcasting what they want when they want.
Why would you try and make people believe that the camel's nose is in the tent when the whole camel has been sitting peacefully in the tent smoking a hookah for decades.
1,943
posted on
12/22/2003 9:20:26 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: Roscoe
Apparently, among other things, you are not aware of the meaning of the term "non sequitur."
1,944
posted on
12/22/2003 9:23:49 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit; Congressman Billybob
"It just repeats false statements . . . " (a) Okay, I'll listen. Please enumerate the statements that you consider false and add your comments after each one. Thanks.
(b) And regardless, do you or do you not agree that A1 is being kicked in the cajones by the court?
(c) Why was Pres. Bush hesitant to sign the bill? Did he really know it was over-reaching and thought the court would toss it out anyway or was he just dancing around the jimmyjohn before taking a swig?
(d) Why did congress sign the bill if they knew it was over-reaching? Were they just dancing around the jimmyjohn before taking a swig?
(e) Do you have a vested in CFR or do you just like to debate?
(f) If you would state your credentials, I would be in a better position to judge whether I should believe you or the dissenting judges, Congressman Billybob and most of the the FReepers on this issue.
Thanks again and Season's Greetz! -- Dave
To: justshutupandtakeit
Freedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Two points:
1) You are comparing the NRA running an ad about a candidate's 2nd Amendment stance to "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." How nice. In fact, there is no comparison - unless, of course, the theater is on fire, in which case, "yelling 'fire'" is not prohibited.
2) The Constitution states quite clearly that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Even if you were correct and "(f)reedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," Congress would still be prohibited from making such a law. Such matters were reserved by the States.
In short, this entire issue is quite obviously "over your head." No surprise there, given your suggestion that the establishment of a Clinton monarchy would be 'constitutional'...
;>)
1,946
posted on
12/24/2003 2:06:36 PM PST
by
Who is John Galt?
("The founders DID NOT campaign nor run ads attacking their opponents" - justshutupandtakeit 12/10/03)
To: Who is John Galt?; Valin
2) The Constitution states quite clearly that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Even if you were correct and "(f)reedom of speech is no more abridged that is is by the inability of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," Congress would still be prohibited from making such a law. Such matters were reserved by the States. It appears to be up to the electorate to hold public servants accountable for Congress' violation of this Amendment. The President and the Supreme Court has failed to do so.
To: July 4th; Always Right; jwalsh07; GeronL
1,948
posted on
01/01/2004 8:32:35 PM PST
by
The_Eaglet
(Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
To: Eastbound; Valin; DustyMoment
Okay, I'll listen. Please enumerate the statements that you consider false and add your comments after each one. Thanks. I don't see any more complaints. :)
1,949
posted on
01/07/2004 12:09:07 AM PST
by
The_Eaglet
(Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,881-1,900, 1,901-1,920, 1,921-1,940, 1,941-1,949 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson