Battle begins over campaign funding secrecy in Montana

[highplainsdem]

Source: Missoulian

HELENA - Thanks to a January U.S. Supreme Court decision, we saw a fresh flow of corporate money to influence this year's election and the striking of a Montana law that banned corporations from directly buying campaign ads.

But the real battle in Montana on this issue is just beginning, and it's not over whether corporations can spend the money - it's whether they can cloak it in secrecy.

Dennis Unsworth, the state commissioner of political practices, says they cannot, and that Montana law requires any entity spending money to influence elections here to report as a "political committee" and list its donors and spending details.

-snip-

Yet those who want to spend this money, and do so anonymously, are striking back, filing one lawsuit a week ago against Unsworth and the state and preparing another.

-snip-

[DCKit]

1. Guess they're not buying that "Federal law over rules state law" BS.

Good on them.

[melm00se]

3. excuse me?

"Federal law over rules state law" BS

BS?

1st off, let's look at that basis of this "BS":

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis added)

So the Constitution is "BS"?

Better hope this isn't true:

- out goes Roe v. Wade
- 14th amendment? who needs the 14th amendment, it's just "BS" and Mississippi says that they can have slaves and place restrictions on who can vote.
- zero chance of universal gay marriage
- full faith and credit clause? zzzzap! useless

(just to name a few)

The US Constitution is not like a cafeteria; you don't get to pick and choose what you want and leave the rest behind. It's an all or nothing proposition. you may not like it (like Brussel sprouts, lime beans or creamed spinach) but you have to accept it or there is no basis for Federal power and the unifying political fabric of the USA.

[fasttense]

6. No where in the Constitution does it allow the supreme court to determine constitutionality of a law...

Read the Constitution and you will find that it does NOT give authority to the supreme court to determine if something is constitutional or NOT. It is a power grabbed by the supreme court with NO foundation in the Constitution.

That aside, you also can't find in the Constitution where it says the supreme court can pick our president for us. Election rules and regulations are clearly put in the hands of the state. The Dancing Supremes have turned this country's court system into a political game show. By selecting the bushes as our president, they have shown absolutely no regard for the constitution.

So, anything further that they have to say about voting is pure BS. The black robed junta has grabbed another power that does not belong to it. They should be impeached.

[glinda]

7. K & R

[melm00se]

8. let's see

No where in the Constitution does it allow the supreme court to determine constitutionality of a law...

I have heard this argument before and it does hold a certain amount of water however by virtue of Marbury v Madison the court determined:

...if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Since then, Congress has, to my knowledge, not taken any legislative steps to resolve exactly what should happen if/when a law is in conflict with the Constitution. The Executive Branch used your argument as an acid test determine suitability for Court appointment, so the other 2 branches abandoned the field.


That aside, you also can't find in the Constitution where it says the supreme court can pick our president for us. Election rules and regulations are clearly put in the hands of the state. The Dancing Supremes have turned this country's court system into a political game show. By selecting the bushes as our president, they have shown absolutely no regard for the constitution.

I am not sure where or how this argument applies other than you can't let it go. It's in the past, you can't get into the "wayback machine" and change things.

So, anything further that they have to say about voting is pure BS. The black robed junta has grabbed another power that does not belong to it. They should be impeached.

Impeachment of a Supreme Court justice can occur but only for the same reasons other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution (for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors). Contrary to your arguments, there is insufficient evidence to support such charges.

[indimuse]

2. KNR! n/t

[pnorman]

5. I was looking for that cartoon!

THANKS!

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Yay, Montana!

And I still love "Blue" Missoula!

[Scurrilous]

9. K & R

:thumbsup: