Doug Miller wrote:
In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What
then?
Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress
the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.
The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last
year. The Court ruled that they didn't.
You keep repeating that.
You keep failing to understand it.
Wrong. I keep refusing to:
1) accept your opinion as fact
2) get into a debate about that particular law.
You state it as FACT and use it as a premise to show that the SC has done
something wrong.
It IS a fact that the McCain-Feingold law prohibits certain types of
political advertising within certain time frames preceding elections.
But is is NOT a fact that it's unconstitutional. It's merely your opinion.
I daresay your uneducated (from the standpoint of being a Constitutional
scholar) opinion.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all sorts of speech is limited by
law.
YOU might believe they allowed a law that violated free speech - others do
too. But many others do not. And I haven't been convinced either way. Nor
am I a constitutional scholar - and I bet you aren't one either.
It's not necessary to be a constitutional scholar to understand the
meaning of "Congress shall make no law...".
Except that since there are many kinds of prohibited speech, it DOES take a
constitutional scholar to decide if one particular law is a violation of
the first amendment.
And you ain't it... again, you are entitled and welcome to your opinion.
But I don't consider yoor opinion as necessarily true.
And as is often the case you stop short in quoting the amendment. Don't
forget the word "abridging". You have to show that the law abridges speech
in a serious way.
And that's s close as I'm getting to a debate about the M-F law.
[Personally, I kinda wish they
had stopped right there, but that's another discussion.] It requires only
the ability to read and comprehend the English language.
Sorry. You are simply, totally, wrong about that.
So while you want to be convinced of it, I'm sorry but I reject it as
some
sort of starting point:
Read the law.
You are not getting it. You continue to miss the point.
You haven't proven it and I'm not interested in that rathole debate.
Especially since neither one of us knows what we would be talking about.
Speak for yourself.
Well tell us, what training in Constitutional Law do you have? formal
training?
I have none.
Believe it if you want - that's certainly your right. but dont' state it
as an absolute fact that can be used in this discussion.
Read the law. It IS a fact, whether you know it or not.
Horse Hockey (see above)
personal opinion about McCain-Feingold snipped
It's not opinion, it's fact that that law prohibits certain types of
advertising during certain time periods.
Beating a dead horse..see above. That's simply NOT enough to show it's
unconstitutional. it MAYt turn out to be, but your opinion is no proof.
Again, I wish to address ONE point you made:
that if the SC makes an unconstitutional decision, that we are powerless to
fix that. That they are unstoppable if they wish to be dictatorial.
you are uttery, simply, completely wrong on that and you admitted it
yourself (when you suggested impeachment).
a debate about M-F belongs somewhere else and can be done without me.
cheers,
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm