Quote :

"and campaign finance reform != limiting any criticism of gov't"

Fine, if I am wrong then within 30 days of the next election you go ahead and try running an ad criticising the current administration.

Let me know how that goes for you.

JoeSchmoe, if we want to nitpick the actual name is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it is not legally called the McCain-Feingold Act, although it was called the McCain-Feingold Bill before passage, but I digress, dipshit.

3/29/2007 10:00:41 AM

Quote :

"A prohibition on broadcast advertising by any union or incorporated entity (including non-profit membership organizations) or any organization using corporate or union money, when such ads refer to a candidate for federal election within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary or caucus. The law defines such ads as "electioneering communications.""

^last time i checked i'm not a union or corporate entity.

3/29/2007 10:35:24 AM

not to mention the current admin won't be up for election in '08

3/29/2007 1:07:36 PM

Quote :

"^last time i checked i'm not a union or corporate entity."

So what? You as an individual are forbidden from spending more than $2,300 on a given candidate (or against his competitors). Let me know how many ads you can buy with that.

3/29/2007 2:16:04 PM

so bush is running for something?

3/29/2007 2:29:01 PM

Yea, Jeb Bush, reelection in Florida I think... not sure though.

Why do you ask?

3/29/2007 4:33:37 PM

Quote :

"most democrats on this board hate the way our country runs and even the way our country is setup (the constitution) and the republicans are the ones that respect and defend the constitution... why are the democrats so dour?"

you're confusing two different issues

disliking the way the country is RUN has to do with the administration in office

i've never known a democrat to not respect/defend the constitution. a couple examples just to wet the appetite: 1st amendment, 5th amendment, SEPARATION OF POWERS, INDEPENDENT judicial system.

BOTH sides act in support of this country, they just have different interpretations

oh and by the way, don't group "most democrats" because i know republicans take offense when it's reversed

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : jank]

3/29/2007 5:04:56 PM

We could ask, which party by-and-large supports a living constitution over a strict interpretation constitution?

3/29/2007 5:58:17 PM

either way respects the constitution. people that argue against a living constitution are delusional and probably terrified of change. they are probably the people that won't try new foods and wear the same shirt for 30 years (i'm somewhat sarcastic with this statement)

anyway, you HAVE to have a living constitution. i've made this point several times but i'll make it again.

for instance, you can't use the constitution as it was written to base laws for the internet and stem cells off of. those among hundreds, if not thousands of other issues, INCLUDING issues we haven't even fathomed yet, can only be based on a constitution that is allowed to evolve with society. hence amendments. or should we still have slavery and not allow women to vote?

3/29/2007 6:05:00 PM

Quote :

"hence amendments"

this we have no problem with, this is our point, the way the constitution should be modified is in this way, not by the changing winds of judicial interpretation. Let it say what it says and stop twisting to suite your political purposes. If you think issue X is unjust then pass an amendment, don't just have the judiciary adhoc it into law through some twisting of words.

3/29/2007 6:23:54 PM

Quote :

"for instance, you can't use the constitution as it was written to base laws for the internet and stem cells off of."

Yes you can, quite easily. The relevant portion is quoted here:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively..."

So, stem cells: If your state legislature wants to ban stem cells or legalize their use, go right ahead. If the Federal Government wants to usurp this power to ban or legalize stem cells, then that is a violation of the Constitution.

I guess your problem, Cherokee, is that you just don't understand what the purpose of a constitution is. It is not like the Bible, an end all document which determines what laws will rule the land. Heck no, the Constitution simply lays out which legislative body is responsible for making which laws. Those laws can be changed every year to keep up with an evolving society, just call your legislator. But a "living constitution" implies the responsibility for making laws should also be allowed to change every year, not just the laws themselves. This year it is up to my state legislature to legalize stem cells, next year Congress has banned them, one year later the power is back in Raleigh, one year later SCOTUS determined that stem cells are a violation of civil rights and banned their collection. This sounds stupid to me. How are we supposed to know which level or branch of government to lobby for redress of grievances if it changes every damn year!?!?

Back before we had a "living constitution" we only had to answer one question: do we want to make something
A) legal
B) illegal
C) or regulated?
Today, we need to answer another question on top of this already intractable one: Which body of Government do we want to do this for us?
A) State Legislatures
B) Congress
C) Just have the judges of the Supreme Court decide, overriding the democratic process

And who gets to make this brand new decision? Nine un-elected judges appointed for life. Thanks to a "living constitution", the law is whatever they believe it should be.

It seems to me that having a "living constitution" is more likely to result in more stagnant rules than otherwise. With a living constitution, you might need to wait for a judge to die before getting a law changed to reflect an evolving society (see abortion ban). With a non-living constitution, we just have to wait until the next election cycle and have the legislature change the law: praise democracy.

3/29/2007 6:50:37 PM

This country is run like shit. Bush stopped giving condoms to south africa. Either he's trying some really fucked up republican darwinism or he's a racist bastard. Stop giving the aids ridden black people condoms? "Nope." That's what bush said.

3/29/2007 10:42:50 PM

^^ first person to offer an intelligent opinion on the matter, i thank you greatly for it

3/29/2007 10:49:07 PM

^

3/29/2007 11:02:34 PM

Quote :

"If your state legislature wants to ban stem cells or legalize their use, go right ahead. If the Federal Government wants to usurp this power to ban or legalize stem cells, then that is a violation of the Constitution. "

So you are ok with the executive branch doing it then? strict constituionalist my ass.

You have had many chances to bring up something where Democrats have turned the constitution into a meaningless document, and have failed twice. I would love to see if a third time is the charm.

3/30/2007 1:22:23 PM

Quote :

"bring up something where Democrats have turned the constitution into a meaningless document"

gun control

3/30/2007 1:24:07 PM

so you cant own a gun right now? i wasnt aware. i should call my dad and let him know.

3/30/2007 1:30:36 PM

can't own a militia stye weapon in many cases


can't own a gun in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, parts of NJ, and various other places


lets get in this argument

I love beating you lefties over the head with the fact that you pick and choose what rights are important

nevermind that the one right you choose to not care about is the only one that protects the other rights of the individual

oh sorry, individual, another term you lefties hate

3/30/2007 1:41:46 PM

if theres one thing detroit needs less of, its guns

3/30/2007 1:42:34 PM

I would make the opposite argument. Gun crime is so effective in Detroit because the average Detroitonian is unarmed.

As Penn Jillette argued, if we gave, as a gift, a handgun to every women upon turning the age of 23 then violent crime would plummet.

Quote :

"So you are ok with the executive branch doing it then? strict constituionalist my ass. You have had many chances to bring up something where Democrats have turned the constitution into a meaningless document, and have failed twice. I would love to see if a third time is the charm."

Republicrats are universally living constitutionalists. You might find a few Republicans who are strict interpretationalists, which makes it all the stranger when it turns out the Republicans are the only party that has appointed strict constitutionalists to the court...

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/30/2007 2:25:57 PM