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.
Two thirds majority to override, vote in house was 252 for, 167 against. Two thirds would have been 279 for. So not only would the veto not have been overridden, I would be willing to bet some of the 252 fors would have changed to against. So once again, Bush signed a bill he knew was unconstitutional even though he knew a Veto would not be overridden.
I'm enough of a realist to have voted for Schwarzenegger, even though I know many of his views run counter to what I think. Bush, however, has:
I didn't expect to be sold out on 90% of my issues. If I wanted more government, more illegal immigration, and less freedom, I'd vote for Democrats.
- helped insert an asterisk in the first amendment
- presided over unprecedented expansion in government
- enacted a protectionist steel tariff (it took him 3 years to correct this mistake, and only after the EU was about to counterattack with its own tariffs)
- indicated a willingness to sign a renewal of the 'assault' weapon ban
- played footsie with the Mexican government and indicated his support for an amnesty for illegals
This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.
What a stretch. That's along the lines of finding more "emanations" in the "penumbras" of the Constitution. Controlling what people can say about politicians and when isn't regulating the 'manner' of an election. Setting the voting age, setting the date, THOSE things are the purview of Congress.
Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.
No, you as an independent person or organization cannot now take out a TV ad within 60 days of an election that shows a federal candidate for office or mentions his/her name. Period. Truth or lies, expose or flattery, all are banned. That's a lot more than preventing the equivalent of shouting 'fire'. You and I are now effectively stymied if we want to criticize some highbinder on the air just before an election. Bush himself said that he wanted certain protections in the law. He didn't get them but signed it anyway and THEN badmouthed it. Am I supposed to give him a pass when he does something utterly stupid and harmful to our basic freedoms?
Hysterical sputtering and whining never did anyone any good and any alternative to Bush is far too horrible to comtemplate.
Labeling people 'hysterical' is just a form of dismissing a viewpoint with which you disagree. Other than in the war on terror, tax cuts, and a few other minor issues, Bush has delivered what amounts to a Democrat agenda, and I'm going to say so. There are alternatives to Bush that aren't too horrible to contemplate. Unfortunately, they'd have to challenge him in the primary, and that isn't going to happen.
Fufilling his campaign promise ?
Like Hell he is!
You don't know that Bush signed it? Huh?
No banning, perhaps, but a muting, and at a most critical time--which is just as contemptible in a free society.
I am just now reading Scalia's remarkably clear and sharply focused dissent. You ought to as well. He hammers home the incumbant criticism-muting point very well.
Excerpt: "This litigation is about preventing criticism of government. I cannot say for certain that many, or some, or even any of the Members of Congress who voted for this legislation did so not to produce "fairer" campaigns, but to mute criticism of their records and facilitate reelection. Indeed, I will stipulate that all those who voted for the Act believed they were acting for the good of the country. There remains the problem of the Charlies Wilson Phenomenon, named after Chalres Wilson, former president of General Motors, who is supposed to have said during the Senate hearing on his nomination as Secretary of Defense that 'what's good for General Motors is good for the country.' Those in power, even giving them the benefit of the greatest good will, are inclined to believe what is good for them is good for the country. Whether in prescient recognition of the Chalrie Wilson Phenomenon, or out of fear of good old-fashioned, malicious, self-interested manipulation, '[t]he fundamental approach of the First Amendment . . . was to assume the worst, and to rule the regulation of political speech 'for fairness' sake' simply out of bounds. . . . Having abandoned that approach in Buckley, we abandon it much further today. . . .
"The most frightening passage in the lengthy floor debates on this legislation is the following assurance given by one of the cosponsoring Senators to his collegues: 'This is a modest step, it is a first step, but does even begin to address, in some ways, the fundamental problems that exist with the hard money aspect of the system.' The system indeed. The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act 1 of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. In scene 3 the Court, having abandoned most of the First Amendment weaponry that Buckley left intact, will be even less equipped to resist the incumbents' writing of the rules of political debate. The federal election campaign laws, which are already (as today's opinions show) so voluminous, so detailed, so complex, that no ordinary citizen dare run for office, or even contribute a significant sum, without hiring an expert advisor in the field, can be expected to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come--and always, always with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech." [emphasis added]
Having run for Congress and battled these demonic regulations and restrictions myself, I can well-identify with the bolded words. Incumbents write laws to benefit incumbents. This legislation is more of the same. Its effect will be to stifle political debate to the benefit of incumbents.
Aren't you special. I'm amazed you're still here if you find it all do distasteful.
No I'm not clueless in the least. My point is that SEVEN of the sitting justices were nominated and appointed by Republicans and the Court is still liberal. And your argument is to keep electing them because the new ones will be conservative? Moreso than Reagan nominations?
Some of them want to or are close to retirment: it's important to make sure we get the 60 votes needed to make sure we DO get nominees that we agree with on the court.
I thought 'winning back the Senate' was all we needed last time. Now we need a 'super majority'? Oh joy, who do we get to vote for next time that the RNC tells us is an acceptable 'conservative'?
Oh it won't stop there .. we'll have to take orders from the French .. hey maybe even start talking French or maybe German .. and and we can have the same social programs like Canada ... just think of all the possibilities that the UN would give us.
Yep .. I ain't going vote for Bush, because I want to teach us all a lesson / sarcasm >
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.
BS.
The Supreme Court has ruled and you're still here posting.
LOL...you would think nobody cares about your question.
BigMack
I take it you're one of the new White House Basement tenants?
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.