Supreme Court Rules McCainFeingold Violated the 1st

[Quinn]

1) Once again:

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

LMAO..... What a passive-aggressive sissy. He repeatedly posts the same tripe directly at me, then cries like a teenage girl when I respond. Guess what, cupcake. Every time you post it, I’ll respond. It’s that simple. If we’re here a year or two, that’s fine with me. Unlike you, I’m still getting paid for the time I spend here.

Now, you can resume whining to mods who don’t care about what you have to say any more than the other posters here.


-Quinn

The fact you cannot face it, and deny reality coupled with the fact you merely thought you knew Constitutional law, is not my problem.

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

You`re as dumb as a stump, I`ve proven it and that drives you insane.

Here`s hoping you get your wish moron:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[Quinn]

Let me know when you're even smart enough to know which branch of goverment is empowered to perform which function – or even something so simple as the fact that tax evasion is illegal under US law – then we'll talk, White_Dissenbling_Dullard

Hey, here's an idea, want wit. How about you go back and edit some more mistakes out of your posts after getting called out on not knowing what your talking about? What an idiot.

1) Once again:

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

Hey, here's an idea, want wit. How about you go back and edit some more mistakes out of your posts after getting called out on not knowing what your talking about?

LOL You`ve confused me with your split personality:

quinn:

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

[/b]

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)

Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.

Now it is legal!

What don`t you understand retard !?

I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."

Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.

But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore

[LG]

This thread blows. Enough already.

And to WMC: If you think you have been proven right (and I don't give a shit by now) then just sit back in the glow of your own self-satisfaction and stop posting- because nobody cares by now. This is the only way this thread is ever going to end.

There was never a need to even create this thread.

[svenson]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again

You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law.

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

[White_Male_Canada]

This thread blows. Enough already.

And to WMC: If you think you have been proven right (and I don't give a shit by now) then just sit back in the glow of your own self-satisfaction and stop posting- because nobody cares by now. This is the only way this thread is ever going to end.

There was never a need to even create this thread.

It was a USSC ruling and has everything to do with politics and free speech so the Topic was/is relevant. Then it was hi-jacked and spammed and deleted. So I restored the original topic. Mods never told anyone anything about not restoring the original.

Hey! there ya go,another complaint for the kook brigade to go cry to mommy about. Tell them the dissenters dared to re-post the original article.

Somebody cares, otherwise they wouldn`t come back over an over to spam/hi-jack and be humiliated by their own words:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly...

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

You`re brow-beating the wrong person lg.Ah but then we know if i were spamming those nonsensical childish topics that are completely irrelevant concerning either politics or religion you`d be belly-aching that i was a disruptive spammer who wanted to be banned and could prove so with my own words.

I don`t think I`ve been proven correct, it is not an opinion solely of mine. It`s a proven fact I am correct, that point is beyond debate anymore. That the villageidiot refuses to accept reality and continually spams gives me the right to the last reply, being my topic.

Am I visiting the villageidiot`s nonsensical topics with my nick in it and spamming/hi-jacking?

Common etiquette dictates the author of the topic reserves the right to reply.

[White_Male_Canada]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again

You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law.

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

Nope, you ARE mildy retarded.

I never said you WERE american. I said "just like".

[LG]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again

You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law.

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

Nope, you ARE mildy retarded.

I never said you WERE american. I said "just like".

Then you should learn to punctuate properly- you know, not confusing your commas with your periods, stuff like that. It would be good if you could make sense in the first place rather than post away and then tell people off for failing to understand (that's a tall order for you, I know). Let's not get into your spelling. At least svenson has an excuse. What's yours?

[Quinn]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again

You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law.

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

LOL... You have to keep in mind, svenson, that you're dealing with an individual who clearly lacks anything approaching a proper education and who obviously isn't well traveled. It's evident to the rest of us – none of whom suffer from White_Dissembling_Duallard’s all too numerous intellectual deficiencies – that, like numerous HA posters, English isn't your first language.

-Quinn