McCain-Feingold Strikes Again
Over at Volokh, David Kopel links to an uber-amicus brief filed by over 30 non-profit groups in the upcoming Wisconsin Right to Life v Federal Election Commission case before the Supreme Court. The non-profits are arguing that the atrocious McCain-Feingold law should not apply to non-profits and public charities. I agree. My favorite quote from the brief is...
"For a representative democracy ceases to exist the moment that the public functionaries are by any means absolved of their responsibility to their constituents; and this happens whenever the constituent can be restrained in any manner of speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions upon any public measure, or upon the conduct of those who may advise or execute it."Blackstone never fails. Kopel concludes his post...
The well-written brief was produced by three attorneys for Perkins Coie, and offers an excellent argument about one aspect of the constitutional abomination that Congress enacted in 2002, and which President Bush--in derogation of his oath to defend the Constitution--signed notwithstanding his belief that the bill was unconstitutional.I've ripped Bush many times on this. He said that the law was unconstitutional, but he signed it anyway. I think he did this for two reasons: 1. an uninformed public pressured him to sign it and 2. he thought the Court would strike it down. Unfortunately, McConnell v FEC didn't come out that way. I don't know which way Wisconsin Right to Life v Federal Election Commission is going to go. It is scheduled for argument on January 17th, so O'Connor will still be on the Court then. I think that Judge Alito will be confirmed before the decision comes down, so O'Connor's vote won't count. If the McConnell votes hold and Roberts votes like Rehnquist, then it's 4-4. If it comes to that, I think that the Court will hold the case over for reargument. Then it's up to Alito. What a difference one vote makes...
I am so mad at Bush for signing this b*** s*** piece legislation and for so many other things he's done and failed to do. I am tired of him and I want him to go away. The last five years have been horrible. And there are three more to go. Plus, Bush has - whether by ignorance or design - set the stage for Hillary to cruise in 08. If Bush is a conservative than I am Brett Favre.
Posted by
John |
8:04 PM
I am holding out hope that this case is held over for reargument and Alito's vote kills the whole damn law.
As much as I rip Bush on this issue, I have sympathy for him. Most of the public does not understand this law. They hear all that garbage from McCain and Feingold about "taking the money out of politics" and "getting rid of the special interests" and such. Their law worked so well too, considering how clean the 2004 election was.
I've mentioned this before, but I had a friend tell me that he didn't care if the law was unconstitutional and restricted free speech; he just wanted "money out of politics." Yeah, good luck. We should pass a law that says everyone has to be nice! Then there will be no crime, poverty, or hate! Whatever.
PS: Feel free to curse. My archives will attest to my potty mouth. Eminent Domain subscribes to a broad interpretation of the First Amendment.
Posted by
Steve |
8:14 PM
Oh, and did you see Feingold on TV the other morning? Yes, I am ready for a Cheesehead president. But NOT Feingold. I for one nominate Mark Belling! :) You goota admit, the state of the union address would be a real experience.
But seriously, my stomach turns at the thought of having Russ Feingold as president. And don't get me started on the two losers from Illinois. Durbin and Obama make me so sick I cannot put it into words. Especially Durbin, but especially Obama.
Posted by
John |
9:28 PM
I wouldn't vote for Feingold for any office. None. Mr Defender of Civil Liberties had no problem shredding the First Amendment, because he could get away with it. The press adores him, so they parrot that "maverick" label ad nauseum. They never utter a critical word of him. I can't remember the Journal-Sentinel EVER saying something negative about Feingold. Almost as if they are rooting for him...
I don't think that he can be elected president. His voting record is way too liberal and way too long. I think his partial birth abortion votes alone kill the entire South for him. The twice divorced thing isn't exactly an asset either. He's got a lot of baggage.
I'd vote for Belling for anything, just because he'd be hilarious. He wouldn't care whose toes he stepped on.
Durbin's "Gitmo as Gulag" shows what a partisan hack he's become in just a few years. He used to be a reasonable guy, while maintaining his party loyalty. The reasonableness has checked out long ago.
Obama is all hype. I haven't seen a single thing from this guy that makes me impressed. He recently attacked pork in the budget, but then decided to not vote for the Coburn Amendment (which would've eliminated some pork). He says one thing to the public, then votes the other way. And how bad does a political party have to be when a first term senator who gave a good speech ONCE is talked about for the presidency?! Talk about a talent vacuum.
Posted by
Steve |
9:55 PM
Fiengold and McCain should have been tared feathered and ridden out of the Senate for even proposing such a blattent violation of the First Ammendment. Instead each is reelected and proped up as Pres hopefulls.
But if we actually expected anyone in Washington to respect the Constitution we'd have passed ammendments to allow the federal government to run retirment plans, insurance plans, interfer w/ public schools ...
And we are to believe that Bush actually expects the Supreme Court to read and interpret the Constitution as it is written?
Rhetorical question but when is the last time eather the House or Senate passed legislation which was Constitutional, free of pork, and actiually dealed with policy? (ie no feelgood meaningless things like declaring "drive sober day" or honering the White Sox for winning the World Series)
Posted by
John Q Cheesehead |
1:57 PM
I'd love for someone to give Congress a copy of the Constitution with Article I Section 8 highlighted. It's a list of things they CAN do. Anything that's not on the list, they have no business meddling in at all.
Posted by
Steve |
5:47 PM