Posted on 03/23/2002 12:08:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The only restriction that I can see thus far, is a ban on actually mentioning a candidates name on the ad.
It is also my understanding that this does not apply for candidates running for the office of VP, or President.
This is the part of the Bill that I believe the SCOTUS will shoot down.
If SCOTUS does say the law is constitutional, then it would HAVE to apply to the media as well since the media is basically nothing more than corporations. Now, you find a flaw in that logic.
First of all, I don't believe for a minute that this law will be upheld. Even the people who sponsored it know it's going to be knocked down. What I can't figure out is why they even bothered to pass it knowing this.
Couldn't have said it better myself! ;-}
And we are cautioned to beware of advocating any sort of civil disobedience against this act restricting free speech?
-- In fact, we should not even discuss the issue on Free Republic, as this could invite trouble.
Incredibly, I think I've got it.
In a catch 22 sorta way.
I don't know about "morally wrong" law breaking, but one stupid evil tyrannical law that enables and empowers the democracy tyrants is the income tax. And, as much as I would like to, you do not see me advocating not paying your taxes. If you read the fine print, Free Republic encourages using our first amendment rights to legally protest government abuse and corruption. We do not advocate breaking the law in any protest. Now, if they truly do close down free speech, then we will have another more serious problem that will need further addressing.
Thanks for your reminder. As Henry David Thoreau noted, there is a huge difference between saying, "I am going to violate the law and stand as an example," and saying "I urge others to violate the law, as an example."
When Thoreau was in jail in Massachusetts for refusing to pay property taxes, in protest over the use of those taxes to support a war, his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson came to visit. Emerson asked, "Why are you here?" Thoreau replied, "Why are you not here with me?"
If you, Jim, choose to violate Shays-Meehan to make a point, you will have thousands of your freinds standing at your side. But I do not believe it will come to that. We are going to kill Shays-Meehan in the Supreme Court. I've put my reputation and profession on the line. If we don't beat Shays-Meehan, I will resign as a member of 26-years standing, in the Bar of the US Supreme Court.
Speaking of the challenge to CFR, you should have e-mail from me, via John, on that.
As always, thank you for your courage, your commitment, and your common sense.
Congressman Billybob
Last day: "The Truman Factor." Next up: "Doesn't Congress Ever Read the Constitution?"
The law would go into effect on 6 November, 2002. Looks like there's two years before the next election so there's plenty of time to vet the constitutionality. But what if a Representative dies, resigns, or goes to jail on 7 November? Under state law, there would be a special election to fill that spot, The ad bans would swing into effect immediately, preventing any citizen's groups who cared about the issues from running ads that name and either praise or criticize any candidates running to fill that vacancy.
This law has to be beat as quickly as possible. I've seen the grounds that McConnell's team will use to go into court immediately with their challenge, rather than waiting. I think they will succeed with that. Shays-Meehan will probably be dead BEFORE the November election.
Congressman Billybob
Last day: "The Truman Factor." Next up: "Doesn't Congress Ever Read the Constitution?"
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.