Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President
Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.
The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
###
Not really. Libertarians have some sort of birth defect that prevents them from acknowledging that the courts know better than they do in reading the constitution. So this means if the courts uphold CFR you wont bitch about it being unconsitutional?
I doubt it. This effects his enemies (ACLU, NAACP) as much as his friends (NRA). You'll forget all about this after the courts strike it down.
This law, like the first campaign finance law in 1975, has a clause to "accelerate the case on the dockets." It goes only to one trial court and then directly to the Supreme Court.
The case cannot be filed until the law actually goes into effect, which is 6 November, 2002. Then, expect it to take about six months from filing of the case in trial court, to final decision in the Supreme Court. That was the time frame for the first such challenge, Buckley v. Valeo, in 1976.
I was in on the planning sessions in New York City for that first case. I will be one of the counsel of record on this case. We are going to have this law struck down as unconstitutional. Here's how strongly I feel about it: If we do not get this law struck down, I will resign as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court, and never set foot in its building again.
Congressman Billybob
That is one of the reasons I feel so certain we will get this law declared unconstitutional. There are many, prior Supreme Court cases which defend First Amendment rights which would have to be reversed, if the Court were to uphold this law.
I will brief this case in the Supreme Court. If we do not get this law declared unconstitutional, I will resign as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court. That's how strongly I feel about this.
And, in answer to a previous poster, we will pull President Bush's chesnuts out of the fire for him, not because he deserves it (he doesn't), but because the Constitution and the people deserve it.
Keep in mind that the case cannot be filed until after the efective date of the law, which is 6 November, 2002. Expect the case to be filed that day, and to go from trial court to final decision in about six months. (The granddaddy case in this field, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, went from filing to final Supreme Court decision in six months.)
Congressman Billybob
Ah and the media would NOT be fired up against Republicans if he signs this. SSUUURREEEE. I heard the same thing when GH Bush signed the tax increase.
Alice had a dream too.
Yes, of course. By the way, can you point out where the "greater good" clause is in the Constitution? I think I missed that one.
I will do all in my power to have this law declared unconstitutional. I expect my colleagues and I to succeed in getting that result from the Supreme Court in about May, 2003. I will do that not because it will save Bush's bacon, but despite that result.
The Constitution and the future of the American people requires that this law be killed. The House has failed. The Senate has failed, The President has failed. Now it is my job to go to war as a lawyer and defend the Constitution. If I fail, I will resign as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court. (Regardless of what others do or don't do, I take the Constitution seriously.)
Congressman Billybob
People like you have made it possible for the political class to destroy this country with your mindless, sports fan enthusiasm for the putrid political games these moral retardates play. If you and your kind would stick to team sports as an outlet for your urge to worship other humans we might have a chance to preserve and reestablish the design for liberty contained in the system of government established by the framers of our Constitution.
Partisan pompom shaking is shirking the duties of citizenship at best and at worst it's treason. You and your fellow celebrity worshippers had better wake up.
What makes you think that isn't what he is up to. Day one was yesterday. He needs to come accross as being for most of the bill just not the constitutional parts if he is to maintain credibility. He also has until the effective date Nov 6, before it goes into effect. He can still do what you say, just under a longer time frame.
In the unlikely event that the SC doesn't declare it unconstitutional then the measure would have been passed eventually. Maybe the better question to ask is should this current court be the one to decide or the next one. At least with this one its probably a no go.
In listening to McConnell, I got the impression legal action was imminent. Once the bill is law (i.e. when it is signed), can suit be filed, or does the filing have to be after Nov. 6, 2002? In other words, if Ted Olsen could seek injunctive relief before the law takes effect, then why can't an advocacy group do the same thing?
I am angry at Bush for saying he will sign this nonsense. Could it be that he is signing it knowing it will be struck down? Is that some Dicky Morris triangulation?
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.