Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to increase public awareness that CFR is unconstitutional

Posted on 03/22/2002 1:02:23 PM PST by Smile-n-Win

Pollster: Do you support reforming campaign finance?
John Doe: Why, sure.

Pollster: Would you support restricting free speech?
John Doe: Of course not!

Obsessed as politicians are with polls, the one reliable way to prevent unconstitutional legislation from being enacted is to turn public sentiment against it. I would like to suggest a simple strategy for increasing public awareness that CFR is unconstitutional:

This is a strategy that has worked all too well for the Liberals. People now believe that the welfare state is something good, that killing your baby is OK, that it is normal for a sex blind couple to adopt and raise a child, and so on--things everyone would have recognized as absurd a couple of decades ago. This has happened because they've kept repeating their lies over and over again, accompanying them with words that sound like a serious argument to the superficial observer.

If the media kept telling us the sky was green rather than blue, many of our non-freeper friends would actually believe them after a sufficient number of repetitions.

The time has come to turn this weapon of the Liberals against them. Let's roll! Let's kill the unconstitutional CFR!


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last
What do you think?
1 posted on 03/22/2002 1:02:23 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss;John W;MeeknMing;Sir Gawain;lowbridge;ppaul;Protect the Bill of Rights;otterpond...
Ping
2 posted on 03/22/2002 1:07:30 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
sex blind?
3 posted on 03/22/2002 1:08:27 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Article I Section 4 "The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such Regulations, except as the Places of chusing Senators."

That being the case how is campaign finance ("manner of holding elections") unconstitutional?

4 posted on 03/22/2002 1:09:15 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
I think you're correct.

Incrementalism has been the tactic of the socialists since as long as I can remember, and what little reading I've done on the subject indicates that the destruction of America has been in the works since the revolution.

We need to reclaim our proper position of assurance that we represented Republicans are right and any other form of government is wrong.

The use of words is the first assault on the mind.

5 posted on 03/22/2002 1:11:55 PM PST by knarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
sex blind?

Homosexual / queer / gay or lesbian. Whichever you consider FREEPolitically correct. Not really the point of this thread. :-)

6 posted on 03/22/2002 1:12:10 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win; Texaggie79
I knew a guy who went sex-blind once.
7 posted on 03/22/2002 1:13:32 PM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Please tell me why it is unconstitutional.
I'll pass on the talking points.
8 posted on 03/22/2002 1:15:20 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
how is campaign finance ("manner of holding elections") unconstitutional?

The unconstitutional CFR restricts free speech. It is against Amendment I, which is considered part of the Constitution.

Also, the manner of financing a campaign is not the same as the manner of holding elections.

N.B. The purpose of this thread is not to bash President Bush. It is to save him from being bashed by Liberals in 2004, without any counterbalance.

9 posted on 03/22/2002 1:15:49 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
So what they say about warrior princesses is true...
10 posted on 03/22/2002 1:16:48 PM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win; Registered
Better idea: drive-time off-ramp FReeping.

Poster: a plethora of people with duct tape over their mouths, with "This is your freedom of speech on 'Campaign Finance Reform'"

11 posted on 03/22/2002 1:17:52 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte; Texaggie79
Get a room you two.
12 posted on 03/22/2002 1:18:01 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Please tell me why it is unconstitutional.

Because I say so! :-)

Seriously now, it restricts free speech. I don't have any time left for today, but I'll be available for a discussion tomorrow.

13 posted on 03/22/2002 1:18:10 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: toenail
Poster: a plethora of people with duct tape over their mouths, with "This is your freedom of speech on 'Campaign Finance Reform'"

Also a good idea. Whatever you can think of does it.

14 posted on 03/22/2002 1:20:23 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Article I Section 4 "The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such Regulations, except as the Places of chusing Senators."

That being the case how is campaign finance ("manner of holding elections") unconstitutional?

What the hell does election mechanics have to do with political campaigning prior to elections and with what people want to say about candidates at any time?

15 posted on 03/22/2002 1:23:14 PM PST by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man;Owl_Eagle;Sunshine Patriot;MHT;Gurn;Maelstrom;marktuoni;chookter;Blood of Tyrants
Ping
16 posted on 03/22/2002 1:23:57 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Because I say so! :-)
Seriously now, it restricts free speech. I don't have any time left for today, but I'll be available for a discussion tomorrow.

Let's see you just signed up, you're posting talking points and mention zero facts.
And you're too busy to discuss details.
I can't figure out the push behind this outrage.

Who here feels personally violated by this law. And why?

17 posted on 03/22/2002 1:24:01 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win; Jeff Head; Snow Bunny; Alamo-Girl; Republican Wildcat; Howlin; Fred Mertz; onyx...
What do you think?

I think we need to start a petition to President Bush and tell him NOT to sign that unconstitutional garbage.
I also am going to compose a letter to him and e-mail it as well.

That's what I think...........
(((PING))))))
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my ping list!. . .don't be shy.

18 posted on 03/22/2002 1:26:00 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mombonn;the Deejay;TrappedInLiberalHell;linn37;Interesting Times;mackattack;goldstategop
Ping
19 posted on 03/22/2002 1:27:25 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit, prnd21
Please tell me why it is unconstitutional.

One provision says you cannot do an "issue" ad 60 (or 30) days before an election. That is restricting speech, thus is against the first amendment, and thus is unconstitutional. They are basically making it illegal to criticize the government.

20 posted on 03/22/2002 1:28:53 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain, Xenalyte
An FR room?
21 posted on 03/22/2002 1:30:47 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
This is a strategy that has worked all too well for the Liberals. . . . they've kept repeating their lies over and over again, accompanying them with words that sound like a serious argument to the superficial observer.

And that is my concern with this method. I like the idea, but to say "they lie, and we should copy them" suggests that we are lying too.

22 posted on 03/22/2002 1:32:38 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Good idea and good post. I just included your article in Breaking in case anyone says anything to you about it
being there. I pinged a bunch of folks too. We need to tell Bush NOT TO SIGN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill................
23 posted on 03/22/2002 1:32:47 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Please tell me why it is unconstitutional

Go to www.heritage.org

24 posted on 03/22/2002 1:33:03 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I think we need to start a petition to President Bush and tell him NOT to sign that unconstitutional garbage.

Absolutely. I still hope the President will not sign the unconstitutional CFR. This is just contingency planning.

I also am going to compose a letter to him and e-mail it as well.

I thought you already did that! I e-mailed him yesterday.

25 posted on 03/22/2002 1:33:21 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: T. P. Pole
They are basically making it illegal to criticize the government.

You just did.
Have you seen those ads? They should be illegal.

As I understand it, you can place an ad if you source the money and backers.
Speaking of sources...

One provision says you cannot do an "issue" ad 60 (or 30) days before an election.

Which provision is that? Can you post it? Anyone?

27 posted on 03/22/2002 1:35:24 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
What proves that this restriction is un-Constitutional is the fact that such speech would be perfectly legal for 275 days of the year. Protected by the Constitution, don't you know. Think of the outrage if such speech were banned completely. OK, then why for 90 days of the year? It's either wrong or it's right. If it's right, you can't take it away just because an election is coming up.
28 posted on 03/22/2002 1:36:14 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawdog
I don't see any CFR info on Heritage...do you have a more specific link?
Thanks.
29 posted on 03/22/2002 1:39:45 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole; justshutupandtakeit, prnd21
I have also heard this bill referred to as the......
Incumbent Protection Bill

30 posted on 03/22/2002 1:42:36 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
N.B. The purpose of this thread is not to bash President Bush. It is to save him from being bashed by Liberals in 2004, without any counterbalance.

The purpose of all threads is to give one's own honest opinion of the topic at hand, not to be shills for anyone or anything.

31 posted on 03/22/2002 1:43:00 PM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Actually, issue ads by individuals or organizations, paid for with hard money, whose sources are disclosed, are completely permissible.
32 posted on 03/22/2002 1:43:39 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
That is restricting speech, thus is against the first amendment, and thus is unconstitutional.

Isn't the mere fact that the FCC regulates the media against the constitution?

33 posted on 03/22/2002 1:44:37 PM PST by Mixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: toenail
LOVE that idea. I'm going to make one!
34 posted on 03/22/2002 1:46:17 PM PST by BornOnTheFourth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lawdog;PRND21;Smile-n-Win
Heritage Foundation: Leadership for America
... Updated 3:38 pm. Issues 2002: Health Care. Some in Congress
want to force individuals and families ...
Description: A leading conservative think tank which publishes research on domestic, economic, foreign and defense...
Category: Society > Politics > Conservative

35 posted on 03/22/2002 1:46:58 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Seriously now, it restricts free speech

Technically, isn't it restricting paid for speech? When the Constitution was written there was no way to account for things like television advertising.

36 posted on 03/22/2002 1:47:22 PM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
That's the same link lawdog kindly posted...where's CRF info? I searched and browsed.
37 posted on 03/22/2002 1:51:02 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: edmund929
The Council On Foreign Relations should be abolished!

Seemingly off topic but quite relevant actually.

Without the federal puppets installed by the Washington establishment's controllers who fancy themselves Marxist type administrators of socialist government, we might not be subjected to this assault on our Constitution and our individual liberty.

38 posted on 03/22/2002 1:52:43 PM PST by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Go to Petition Online and see if one hasn't already been started. If not start one and post it here on FR.

I'll sure sign it.

39 posted on 03/22/2002 1:53:25 PM PST by Brownie74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
CFR, as far as I know, has nothing to do with the times, places, and manner of holding elections. Right?
40 posted on 03/22/2002 1:58:31 PM PST by PaulJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brownie74

Statement by the President

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.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html


The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

GOV. BUSH: I do.

WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

41 posted on 03/22/2002 1:59:30 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
One provision says you cannot do an "issue" ad 60 (or 30) days before an election. That is restricting speech, thus is against the first amendment, and thus is unconstitutional. They are basically making it illegal to criticize the government.

I'm not thrilled with this bill, but let's be accurate. It doesn't say you can't run issue ads... it says if those ads mention the name of a candidate during the 30 or 60 days prior to an election, they must be paid for with "hard" money.

42 posted on 03/22/2002 2:01:46 PM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Yes indeed. Jurisdiction jurisdiction and jurisdiction.

Somehow politicians can put people in jail for "influencing", but they never do when they take bribes or mislead US IN THEIR VERY OWN SPECIAL INTEREST LIES!. THe American people are not merely losing freedom, but jurisdiction for sake of politicians' own personal vigilante lynching looting rights.

Let them read what CFR says:

If you read about the rationale in the constitutions delineating the jurisdiction limits between the Feds, the states, the people and the three branches of government, we all perfectly understand that any piece of legislation which allows a party encroach another party's jurisdiction is illegal. Start with article 1 of the constitution and later how seperation of powers and checks and balances are to be managed.

Specificaly the bill imposes ludicrous limits on individuals and businesses from contributing to one party or another in paid ads specificaly. Read it for yourself, it is common knowledge that campaign finance reform imposes limits on individual contributions on speech BUT NOT ON DIRECT BRIBERY.

Since when had the state powers to control what one does with his or her pocket money aside from blatant cases of bribery and prostitution where money is specificaly used as a contract payment for a politician or a whore to give up his or her jurisdiction while he or her was voted or exists to exert such independent jurisdiction?

This campaign finance reform is a loophole for bribery for politicians. It does not go after corruption and illegal contracts in politics and politicans, it goes after individuals who make personal campaigns of their own, not the one bribing the bastards.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF. THEY WANT TO BAN FINANCIAL INFLUENCE. WHERE IN THE HELL DOES THE CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES "INFLUENCE" AS A DE FACTO CONTRACT INVOLVING JURISDICTION VIOLATION AND EXPLOITATION? SO WHAT NOW? BLAME WOMEN AS PROSTITUTES IF THEY WILLINGLY TAKE A RIDE IN RICH MEN'S CARS HITTING ON THEM?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO GET A FREAGING GRIP ON REALITY!!!


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO

Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search

Prev Hit        Back              HomePage

Hit List        Best Sections     Help

                Doc Contents      


GPO's PDF version of this bill References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Full Display - 114,378 bytes. [Help]

H.R.380

Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)

Beginning
January 31, 2001

TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE


`SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES
TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES
TITLE III--DISCLOSURE
TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION
`VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
`USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES
`PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS
`PROTECTING EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS IN CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS
`TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS TO BE RETURNED TO DONORS
TITLE VI--INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
TITLE VII--PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEALS AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
TITLE IX--PROHIBITING SOLICITATION TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO CERTAIN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
TITLE X--REIMBURSEMENT FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY FOR CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY
`REIMBURSEMENT BY POLITICAL PARTIES FOR USE OF AIR FORCE ONE FOR POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
`REIMBURSEMENT FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED TRAVEL
TITLE XI--PROHIBITING USE OF WALKING AROUND MONEY
`PROHIBITING USE OF CURRENCY TO PROMOTE ELECTION DAY TURNOUT
TITLE XII--ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN LAW
TITLE XIII--BAN ON COORDINATED SOFT MONEY ACTIVITIES BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
TITLE XIV--POSTING NAMES OF CERTAIN AIR FORCE ONE PASSENGERS ON INTERNET
TITLE XV--EXPULSION PROCEEDINGS FOR HOUSE MEMBERS RECEIVING FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
TITLE XVI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO

Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search

Prev Hit        Back              HomePage

Hit List        Best Sections     Help

                Doc Contents      


51 posted on 3/22/02 12:40 PM Pacific by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]



43 posted on 03/22/2002 2:01:50 PM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
I think this has been talked to death. It is so inconsequential in the big picture as to be a yawn.

If you are a one issue person, maybe it is worth wasting all this time on.

I certainly listen to Rush, but I also think for myself and just can't see what all the hysterics are about.

I really pay little attention to political lies excuse me advertisements.

44 posted on 03/22/2002 2:02:03 PM PST by w1andsodidwe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole; justshutupandtakeit, prnd21; Smile-n-Win; ReaganGirl; ALL
FReeper ReaganGirl posted this article yesterday morning:
Bob Johnson, David Keene and other leaders send
letter to President Bush on Campaign Finance Veto!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650776/posts

Here is the link to the letter with the signatures:
The Letter
http://saturn.he.net/~danger/freepnet/acu2bush.html

Here is the letter.............

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500
March 20, 2002


Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the nearly one million members and supporters of the American Conservative Union, and the millions more represented by those groups who have co-signed this letter, we are writing to urge you to veto the ill-conceived and unconstitutional Campaign Finance "Reform" bill, passed by the House last month, and the U.S. Senate this afternoon.

As we have said all along, this is not about politics, but about principle.

It is a travesty that so many Members of Congress-on both sides of the aisle- seem to have either forgotten about or chose to intentionally ignore their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution" when they cast their votes on this legislation. It is, frankly, sad that such an affront to freedom has actually made it to the desk of the President of the United States.

Much of the debate over this legislation focused on which party will be helped or hurt by its various provisions, with very few commentators addressing the core questions of whether or not the sorts of restrictions on political speech envisioned by the bill's authors are either wise or Constitutional. We don't know which party will ultimately benefit or be hurt by this legislation and what's more, we don't care.

The bill making its way to your desk completely redefines political speech and outlaws or criminalizes speech that every American has always believed to be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Looked at from our perspective, you are being asked to sign a bill that tells those who might want to criticize the actions of politicians to just shut up.

We understand fully the reasons why you have taken the position up to now that Congress could not count on a Presidential veto on this legislation and must therefore work to fashion something that is fair, effective and, yes, Constitutional. Well, Congress had its chance … and failed.

So now it's up to you!

You can pass the buck to the courts and hope that they will straighten out this mess. Or, you can veto it for what it is…. A bad bill that criminalizes political speech and deserves to be sent back from whence it came.

If there was ever a time to use the veto pen this is it. We urge you to veto this legislation.

If you can honestly say that you believe legislated restrictions on political speech is at the core of what our Founders wanted, by all means, sign the bill. But if you believe the proposed restrictions won't pass muster by a Supreme Court that actually believes in free speech, please, do everyone a favor by vetoing it.

Yours Sincerely,

David A. Keene
Chairman, American Conservative Union

(Many other signatures – click HERE to see them.)

45 posted on 03/22/2002 2:03:04 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe
I really pay little attention to political lies excuse me advertisements.

The problem is the "average voter" has no idea what the issues are until right before an election, which means they will get it from their local newspaper. This gives the press an enormous amount of power in it's ability to sway voters, all predicated by the newspapers political leanings.

46 posted on 03/22/2002 2:08:22 PM PST by PaulJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mixer
Isn't the mere fact that the FCC regulates the media against the constitution?

Since we consider the radio spectrum to be a public resource, then I feel it is OK to regulate it in regards to the use of that spectrum. But like all things governmental, they stepped outside of the task and are in charge of too much.

47 posted on 03/22/2002 2:09:28 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: CA Conservative
I'm not thrilled with this bill, but let's be accurate.

Got to admit I was reporting my understanding. Because of this conversation I have looked up the bill and you are correct. Or, at least, it appears you are. The bill keeps refering to other pieces of the US Code which I have not looked up. It is a nightmare to figure exactly what is going on with this (and all other) bill.

One thing I always thought would be a good idea was to require a complete reading of every bill voted on. Make the bill be read in the chamber, and do not allow any other work while the reading is going on. This would make bills shorter, easier to understand, and allow for the passage of fewer of them.

49 posted on 03/22/2002 2:13:35 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
The George W. Bush Lie

The price one pays for allowing oneself to be used as an establishment puppet. You have to say what makes sense to fool the electorate and then you have to suffer the ignominy of the liar, fool, sell-out when you must do what you are told.

It is not surprising that the puppets being recruited to play the fool seem to be selected from the most intellectually challenged available.

50 posted on 03/22/2002 2:19:38 PM PST by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson