Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)

As many of you know, one of your colleagues, Congressman Billybob (John Armor, Esq., in real life) will file one of the briefs in the US Supreme Court in opposition to Shays-Meehan.

He will file it on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, which believes in protecting and enforcing the Constitution as written. One of its Advisory Board members is the Hon. Robert Bork.

This brief does not depend on your responses to this notice. It will be filed in any event. But all FReepers who wish to play a role in the effort to have Shays-Meehan declared unconstitutional, are invited to contribute what they choose to the ACRU. It is a tax-deductible, legal charity.

All who contribute at least $25 will receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Please visit the ACRU site to confirm that their vision of the Constitution is the same as yours, and the same as that of Jim Robinson and FreeRepublic.

Be sure to include your name and address if you wish to receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Write "FreeRepublic" on the memo line of your check so we know you responded to this appeal. Include your screen name if you would like to be thanked publicly on this thread. Do NOT send any contributions greater than $100. Reserve such large donations for FreeRepublic.

You will NOT get on any mailing list, snail mail, e-mail, or otherwise, by responding to this request. All information will be kept in strict confidence, unless you include your screen name so you can be thanked on this thread by that name.

By the way, the ACRU was the client for the very successful brief also filed by Congressman Billybob in the Bush/Florida case. The text of that brief was posted on FreeRepublic in December, 2000.

If you have any questions about this message, please contact: congressmanbillybob@earthlink.net

Thank you for your consideration of this request for help. (Both Congressman Billybob and the American Civil Rights Union are entirely independent of FreeRepublic. However, this request is being posted with the permission of Jim Robinson.)

Good morning, This issue was decided in Buckley back in 1976. That decision has been reaffirmed and broadened since then. In fact this Court reaffirmed Buckley about two years ago but I'm having trouble finding the case, so maybe it was three years ago.

Any way, the point is, this will not go away just because the Court strikes this down again. The Senate doesn't care what the Constitution says and some of them will bring it up again and again.

If Bush were to veto the bill and point to the court decisions that say this is unconstitutional, he also puts the scum on the defensive and lives up to his oath of office. By signing this bill, Bush loses the main reason many people voted for him. They thought he was honorable and could be trusted.

The political strategy the administration is following may be too slick by half. They stand to lose more than they gain.

A month or so ago, Rove was whining about the millions of Christians who stayed home in the 2000 election. If millions of conservatives stay home in 2002 because of this, we lose on two fronts.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Cyber-Patriots you know the drill!

Man the Phones. Man the Fax Machine.
Flood the E-mail Box.
Fight for Your Rights.
Now is the Time for All Good
Men and Women to Come to the Aid of Their Constitution.
Get Hot! Get Moving!

Let the President Hear You ROAR!!!

Thank you. You'll be happy you got that off your chest! And Lady Liberty will Love You For Being Her Champion!

As a Federal employee I can assure you that there are issues behind the scene that Freepers can't possibly know that influence all types of decisions everyday. Even in my lowly position, I know my supervisors are making decisions based on facts unknown to me. They often seem idiotic until I find out the reasoning behind them. I think you're right about this . . . Bush may even have had some conversations with the SC justices already!

Some of the knee-jerk hysterics that some are spouting may seem idiotic a few months from now! All I can say is Washington takes more patience than most people can understand or comprehend. The art of politics is sometimes like a game of chess - the early moves may make no sense, but the goal is to win the game.

This has always been my opinion of Bush (after voting for him twice as governor) - he is a master chess player!

Congressman Billybob, I Love your posts and look forward to them everyday.

Please do me a favor though, Tell me what you alluded to last week, about what Bush might do, that has never been done before, that would not require a veto of this bill.

I have been wondering about it all week. You can link me to the response if it has been made already.

Thanks

Good morning, my friend, good to hear from you.
You hit the nail on the head. Buckley is the granddaddy case in campaign finance "reform." It has been reaffirmed in two dozen other cases since 1976. Buckley will not be reversed, or "revisited" as Li'l Tommy Daschle suggested last week.
And under the plain language of Buckley several sections of Shays-Meehan are unconstitutional, and will be struck down.
I agree with you about the President's decision to sign this monstrosity. I would have much preferred that he stand on the Constitution and vetoed the bill and let the chips fall where they may.
However, it now looks like we will get a Supreme Court decision striking Shays-Meehan BEFORE the November elections. If so, Li'l Tommy Daschle & company (including McCain) will be on the defensive for "deliberately passing an unconstitutional bill."
If so, it is the Democrats and squish Republicans who will suffer most in November, 2002. The result will be a better Congress, And the new Congress will not repass the same monstrosity.
That's my read on the situation. And I'm doing my part by attacking CFR in the Supreme Court with all guns blazing.

Billybob

Assuming it becomes law, the bill will not end the influence of money in politics, but instead will drive such influence further underground.

How true...from Doug Fiedor report on the news Mar 23:

"The bottom line is that if politicians weren't in the business of granting favors and exacting tribute, every single issue surrounding campaign finance reform would be irrelevant. After all, why would anyone spend money for influence, access, favors and tribute if the only thing that politicians do is to live up to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution? But, I'm afraid, most Americans want congressmen to do something else -- to violate the Constitution in order to make it possible for them to live at the expense of others." -- Professor Walter E. Williams

Keep up the good work Congressman!

And thanks for the post dittomom.

However, it now looks like we will get a Supreme Court decision striking Shays-Meehan BEFORE the November elections. If so, Li'l Tommy Daschle & company (including McCain) will be on the defensive for "deliberately passing an unconstitutional bill."

But by "deliberately signing and unconstitutional bill", the President will not really have a leg to stand on politically. If he vetoed it and it was passed over his veto, then he would have the political high ground on the issue. But not if he signs it, or that's the way I see it anyway.

Here is the results of a search on "Bush". To which case do you refer?

No. 00-836, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board et al?

FLORIDA ELECTION CASES

Petitions, Oppositions, Replies, etc.

I think the issue is more why does the President go out of his way to support candidates and positions of the left of Tom Daschle? Regardless of what one might think of the war effort, where has the White House been on the domestic side. Can any one on here name one domestic issue aside from tax cuts the Administration has backed conservatives on? And yet here the President is willing to go along with the Rats and the RINOs on a measure OPPOSED by his own party's base. Why does the White House think conservatives are losers and it no longer wants the base to help it win in 2004? A lot of what the President's men are doing is exactly the opposed of what needs to be done to bring the most committed Republicans to the polls. Maybe if we all stay away, we'll send the message our principles AND votes can't be bought just because we need warm bodies in Congress --- I mean the kind who look and sound like Republicans but aren't when it comes time to stand up for the people who voted for them. And if you're wondering why so few Americans bother to vote its because they don't think the people in power care about them any way. As we've seen they certainly don't think upholding the Constitution is the highest priority for them.

I really admire people who know how to make a computer sing, and put the world at the fingertips of others, via links. The second amicus brief under 00-836 and 00-837 in your list, above, is the one that I filed in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (Bush I) on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union.
That is the ONLY brief in the entire list you posted, which urged the Court to "strike" (or "vacate") and "do nothing else" concerning the first Florida Supreme Court decision. All the other attorneys for both sides urged the Court to "affirm" or "reverse." What the Court did in Bush I was to vacate the lower decision, and did so unanimously.
That is the judicial equivalent of a home run in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded in the seventh game of the World Series. Or, as Al Pachino said in Scent of a Woman, "Hoo-hah."
Thank you for your serious work in pulling this together and making it available on this thread. I wish I had your skills in this.

Billybob

BTW, Netscape doesn't like this file, and opens it as control characters. If anyone wants to read the brief, Internet Explorer seems to do so just fine.

THE AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER
[...]
GEORGE W. BUSH,
Petitioner,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 00-836
IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court of the United States
_______________________________
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
Counsel Press LLC
[...]
Of Counsel:
PETER FERRARA
Executive Director, ACRU
[...]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

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.