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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[stljoe71]

So exactly how could Gore done worse than sign the bill? Perhaps your definition of delusional is different than mine.

[B Knotts]

I frankly don't know what to do anymore. When the people responsible for upholding the fundamental values and rights, deriving not from any man, but from our Creator, fail to do carry out their duty, and instead deny us our natural human rights...I really don't know where to go to fix things. We have no recourse, it seems, other than civil disobedience.

[VRWC_minion]

The Constitution says what it says; regardless of what the current crop of politicians tell us.

Yes it does, and this bill has met the test set forth by the founding fathers as constitutional. We may not like the result, but its certainly constitutional. The only remaining recourse that our constitution has set forth is amendment.

Absent working within the constitution, the other remaining recourse is to overthrow this constitutional gov't and replace it with a new one.

[Dane]

Hi bvw, give a polite hello to todd for me over at malcontent central.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Imagine a show called America Fights Back, where law abiding gun owners tell how they stopped criminals [using their firearms] through re-creations."

I love that idea...hope somebody--e.g. the NRA--picks up on it...MUD

[GRRRRR]

Fer shure...this whole thing is totally NUTZ!!!

I lovya Dubya, but this was one HUGHE mistake on his part...

Now the politicos can't be criticized...ever...

MERRRY CHRISTMAS!!
GRRRRR

[B Knotts]

No kidding. I can understand some degree of pragmatism, but it has gotten way out of hand.

[Howlin]

He did? I did not know that. You should have said something before now.

[oceanview]

the case(s) hasn't been filed yet, give it time, this snowball is just starting to roll. you can bet that every liberal group in the US is tooling up their lawyers right now.

[Howlin]

You are correct, we could have the Florida justices on the USSC instead.

As Mo1 asked earlier, when all these people sit home and don't/won't for Bush, and one of the Dems that are running is elected, do you think the UN will let us keep the USSC?

[Howlin]

You'll be sorry you said that, man!

[B Knotts]

OK...how about oligarchy? :-)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since you quoted me I would have hoped you understood the quote. Nothing in there supports your contention that anything to contradict your statement was said by me. Reread it again more carefully.

[Protagoras]

Lots of complaints, few solutions.

The solution is simple, the fact that you can't see the obvious doesn't change that.

[rapture-me]

I have urgent questions.

(1) Does this apply only to Federal candidates or to ALL State & Local candidates?

(2) Can Political Parties continue to run ad's immediately before an election? If not, what are the time frame limits?

(3) Do Political parties have to remove their web-sited during the banned time period?

[San Jacinto]

How about congress's right to establish rules regarding the elections of its members ?

If they can make it illegal to criticize the candidate in a commercial ad, why not just make it illegal not to vote for the candidate? Who needs pesky election anyway?

Your interpretation of Article I is quite broad. You should read it. It mentions the "time, place and manner" of elections." I don't see that as allowing banning political speech via commercial ads. Furthermore, the main power to regulate elections is given to the state legislatures-- not Congress.

[oceanview]

that's exactly right, the liberal papers aren't even going to run your ad. but you can bet they will help moveon.org craft an ad and run that one. and who is going to do anything about it?

[VRWC_minion]

who is watching WNRA?

It will depend on there content. If they go for the calendar babes with guns, just about every male in the country who presently watches the Spanish station (guys know what i mean).

[Bob J]

who is going to stop the NYT from taking a moveon.org ad?

Bias from the leftist media generally takes on more subtlety. Spiking, mischaracterization, buzzwords, angle, etc. Taking a frontal approach by placing TV ads would blow their tenuous plausible deniability on the issue. Of course, they could, but I doubt strongly they would take that approach.

I almost wish they would. It would give the right hard core proof that even the most skeptical could understand. It is my opinion that the left media already suffers from at best a suspicion of bias by the middle road voters. The net effect is a watering down of their ability to influence. All it needs is some blatant moves on their part to ruin what credibility they have left with all but the most jaded dems.

[Dane]

I don't have the answer; but I am certainly not going to go into knee-jerk-defend-the-GOP mode

Of course you don't. You go into "knee-jerk-blame-the-GOP mode".

Of course my question of what of what may have happened if Ginsburg or Breyer had not been appointed by a President Clinton goes unanswered.