Not to beat a dead horse, but what then is a “dubious assertion of unconstitutionality”? You seem to be saying that those claiming that CFR is unconstitutional are making such a dubious assertion. But your rationale for calling those assertions dubious is judicial precedent; if you agree that Congress and the President should make constitutional evaluations independent of precedent, why is the assertion by members of Congress that CFR is unconstitutional “dubious”?
I was listening to NPR a while back and they had a quote from a congressional staffer that said basically. “We passed the law and now the courts need to tell us what it means.” That was the most pathetic thing I have heard in politics In quite some time. These people fought to pass a law and they don’t know what they passed?
Dewey, I was speaking in general, not about campaign finance reform. And, of course, it works the other way around; I was disgusted that a majority of Congress voted in favor of the flag-burning ban (though I was even more disgusted that the ban was held unconstitutional by only a 5-4 vote by the Supremes.)
In this specific case, I freely acknowledge that those who believe that CFR is unconstitutional have valid arguments - my own interpretation is that they are wrong, but hey, as already stated, it’s an open question. If Bush believes that CFR is unconstitutional, he should exercise the veto. If, however, he does not believe it unconstitutional, he should not use that argument as cover - he should veto it and publicly state he is vetoing it because he thinks it is bad law, or not good for Republicans, or whathaveyou, and take the heat.
Sua
** Dewey Cheatem Undhow **, I agree with your posts.
Here’s another point to consider. The SCOTUS can find a portion of a law unconstitutional, and retain the rest. The President cannot make a partial veto; he can only veto the whole thing. So, should he veto a basically good law because he believes one portion to be unconstitutional? I’d say he should. YMMV.
minty green, I’m sorry to quibble about a comment that was meant as a kind-of joke. However, the ACLU and I believe that M-F is clearly unconstitutional. You seemed to take an opposing POV, based on the two cases you cited. Similarly, Sua Sponte said that Constitutionality was an open question. So, I was accurate in stating that I supported the ACLU position on this issue and you two opposed it.
Sua Sponte,
Sua I never called you anything at all. I didn’t accuse you of “lip service.” Furthermore, when I accused the NY Times of “lip service”, I meant they have an uneven commitment to free speech.
However, I’m sorry that you feel offended, and apologize for any bad feelings my words caused. 
Funny to see december proud to be on the same side as the ACLU in this one.
For the record, I understand that this view is unique to the current administration of the ACLU and past administrations have supported CFR. It would be interesting to hear the politics behind the shift but the facts don’t really support december’s attempt to rub noses in it.
On the OP I agree that an honest perception of unconstitutionality is sufficient to justify a veto regardless of the absense of case law to support the position. I also don’t think it is necessarily always wrong to pass the buck to the Supreme Court if you are seeking to add clarity to the issue.
If that’s the case, then what’s the deal with the line item veto power the President now has?
Had. it was quickly struck down in Clinton v. NY.
You’re slipping, december. Usually you at least wait until your post is on a previous page before you deny you wrote what you wrote. Here is a quote of what you wrote.
(Emphasis added).
Since it seems you haven’t taken this lesson to heart, let me write it again - what you post on these boards remains on these boards, and we can look back and see what you post. Therefore, attempts to deny you wrote something will fail.
In your OP, the NY Times was only part of the set of persons who paid “lip service” to the idea that campaign finance reform is constitutional. You had no qualifiers that distinguished between persons who honestly believe the bill is constitutional and those who are merely paying lip service to that belief.
I am part of the set who believes and asserts that the bill is constitutional. Ergo, you called me a hypocrite and a liar.
Apology not accepted, because it was untruthful.
Sua
IANAL but my impression is that McCain-Feingold-Shays Meehan may regulate internet postings, as well as TV, radio, etc.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107jDF3FH:e14829:
The bill restricts and regulates “eletioneering communication.” A number of acts are made felonies. So, it’s possible (although far-fetched) that the law might be interpreted to make certain postings on this message board into felonies. An example might be a Bush-bashing thread posted within 60 days of the next Presidential election. I think these posts might be felonies if they were held to be “coordinated activity.”
december, only if an internet communication is considered a “broadcast, cable, or satellite communication,” which I suspect it isn’t. I suspect those terms would be defined somewhere else in the code or via administrative regulation.
december, given that so far we don’t pay to post here, how can any of us not spending money in favor of a candidate become a felony under a bill about campaign contributions?
You might also note that the section you quoted deals with when such an electioneering communication be disclosed, and that a “coordinating activity” is defined (in a different section) and all of their examples of what is a cooridnating activity begin with the phrase “A payment made by a person”.
It would also be interesting if you could compare the summary of the bill with its present text to better show how it criminalizes message board posts.
Some of the summary:
That merely demonstrates the ACLU does not restrict itself to causes of a particular political spectrum (despite the attempts by Conservatives to smear it as such).
It doesn’t say anything about you. Well, nothing that we don’t already know, anyway.
He said “many”. “Many” is a qualifier. Your attempts to twist a dissenting viewpoint into a personal attack is very unbecoming. Simply because he did not spefically exclude you personally from the class of people that pay lip service does not mean that he was accusing you of lip service. Furthermore, “lip serivce” does not mean hypocrisy or lies. “Lip service” means professing support for a position without acting on it. “Hypocrisy” means professing support, and acting against it.
Except that “lip service” commonly implies that the speaker believes the failure to act indicates that the words are dishonest or hypocritical, e.g., “Ronald Reagan paid lip service to family values, but divorced his wife and ignored his children.” Do you see any implicit charges of dishonesty or hypocricy in that one?
Here’s what the dictionary says:
I meant the term in the sense of example – a lack of real conviction. Congress has been careful to structure CFR to be separable, because there’s a widespread expectation that parts of it will be ruled unconstitutional. The Times strongly recommends M-F, just as if they were convinced that every single part of it was clearly Constitutional, but I doubt that they really believe that.
Hijack: There was a time when libertarian types and liberals gave very strong support to an expansive definition of freedom of speech. E.g., we agreed that flag-burning is speech and that . taking away government funding from certain arts may be censorship.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that liberal support for FOS has waned, in certain situations. One is CFR. Another is requirements for PC speech on campus. A third is verbal sexual harassment. I’m concerned that libertarians alone may lack the political clout to preserve freedom of speech.
Okey doke. Your definition and your explanation say exactly what I said–that you believed the NY Times and others say the bill would be Constitutional while privately or personally believing it is not. In other words, they’re hypocrites or liars. Hooray for civilized discourse.
This thread is already a train wreck, but I would agree that restrictions on actual speech–e.g., you can’t have polictical ads at certain times, etc.–are most likely unconstitutional, and I oppose them on principle no matter how the courts rule. Other provisions, such as spending restrictions, are very clearly constitutional under the precedents I named above, and I support some of them (I prefer soft money to hard money) because I think they’re a good idea.
Now what, precisely, did you hope to accomplish with this thread? Some admission of hypocricy? Not on my part, and not on the part of any regular posters whose names I recognize in here. The very least you or anyone can do in Great Debates is to give other people credit for the honesty of their convictions.
I was looking for a debate on the idea of Congress and the President leaving Constitutional questions to the courts. A number of posters addressed this question, and all were opposed. I suspect that if one asked legislators, newspapers, etc., most of them would also express opposition to this principle. One might think there was no debate here.
And,yet, in practice, the President (presumably), a majority of Congress, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all are in favor of the CFR law, even though, as minty green said, some parts are most likely unconstitutional. Their actions follow the principle of leaving Constitutional worries to the Courts (assuming that they agree that parts of the law are likely to be overturned).
I wonder if any of you posters wants to see CFR passed, even though you think it’s partially unconstitutional. Or, do any of you support CFR, and you simply aren’t concerned about Constitutionality questions.
I think he should just go ahead and veto it.
Campaign finance “reform” has never been shown to be an issue most Americans care about. Of course, the Washington Times and LA Times would squeal like stuck pigs if Bush did veto it, since they are the ones pushing it so hard.
Or how about those of us who support CFR and don’t think it’s unconstitutional?