Once again... tryign to use obfuscation and confusion to prove somthing that is untrure. I'm skmming this... perhaps you could point me to the unconstitutional paragraph??


So I was wrong... I did not follow the finfance reform case So yep I missed that. But what part of THE COURTS ruling is unconstitional?


Your grabbing at straws dude.... none of this really has anything to do with the draft. Its called obfuscation. Lawyers do that a lot. The sad thing is I think you really believe that the constitution is going to be shredded.

Because 2004 is sooo similar to 1941!

I served for 4 years on a submarine, that was enough for anyone!

Calling that document or anything within unconstitutional is a joke.

The act had EXEMPTIONS for certain groups and the NRA and ACLU were trying to obtain exemptions but were denied becasue they accept cooperate funding.

You really should read shit before posting it to try and back yourself up.

You admitted you were wrong, thankyou. Now let's get on to other things.

The supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution and review legislation for constitutionality. That's their job, they are a "constitutional convention in continuous session." (Marbury vs Madison)

You said:
I said:
These cases are examples of laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and that the supreme court has reviewed and upheld. Since the laws are upheld, they are deemed to not be unconstitutional. Thus the supreme court has already stopped unholding the constitution.

You're the one obfuscating by bringing up a bunch of details that are meaningless to the discussion at hand. For example, the whole "writ of certiori" argument you tried to carry one and which I essentially ignored. Check the mirror before you accuse anyone else of something. :2 cents:

Dude wether that ruling is or is not constituation is not meaningless.

You brought up writ of certiori and used it incorrectly to state that it had osmthing to do wit ha supreme court ruleing.

Your a joke and anyone subjectivly reading whats gone on here knows it. Anyone who take a half hour to skim the gocument you linked will also know it. THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT RULING HTAT IS UNCONSTITUATINAL. No... you cited ONE case... that Im reading... wich appears to be CLEARLY constituional.

You keep repeating yourself thinking it will make what you say true.

If I got drafted id say this country is TOTALLY fucked. Reminicent of Hitlers Germany in the final days, when he had 80 year old men and kids fighting to the last. Hmmmm Yeah draft a crippled over weight middle aged man to fight. :1orglaugh

If anyone or any organization that is forced to stay silent, then that goes against the first ammendment.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or the press . . . "

Those organizations are groups of citizens who have formed for a specific political reason. If they are silenced during an election period, then one of the major voices that the American people have has been silenced. PLEASE explain to me how that is not unconstitutional.

How is it consitutional? Groups of citizens are forced to remain silent 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. How is that constitutional?

Um no.... Thats an invalid summary. The act is mostly about stopping LARGER companies setting up puppet non-profit groups or using already existing groups that are exempt form the rules to FUNNEL MONEY into advertisments without having to take responsibility for what happens to the money after they hand it over.

It also keeps everyones speech FREE by trying (but failing) to close loopholes that make the freedom no longer free by giving groups with shitloads of money the ability to override the speach of others.
Again... no. Only groups of citizens that had MONEY FUNNELD INTO THEM FROM A LARGER COOPERATION.

There are many groups that dont accept cooperate money that are exempt.

These are groups of citizens organizing themselves to push a particular idea, or set of ideals. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially when the only thing we're allowed to listen to otherwise are the campaigners who constantly lie out of their ass. They're allowed to lie in their campaign ads and somehow it's not false advertising. That's a much greater threat to freedom and democracy then a group of citizens wanting to say something about an election, regardless of where their money comes from.

The whole idea of groups that are funded one way or another sounds like it's just a red herring so that we won't pay attention to the real bullshit going on.

Further, funding is not a matter that is addressed in the first ammendment, therefore I don't see how this law can be constitutional.

Hahahah so youd like big corps to grant senators and govoners money? So they can put up ads in thier office? Heck your limiting thier free speech! You can't look at free speech the way your arguing becasue it just doesnt work that way in the real world.

I can't waste any more time on you. No matter what I say your gonna see what you want. Choose to see though cheney's corporate ties then choose to ignore the ACLU and NRA's cooperate ties and support thier PROPAGAHNDA about constitutional violations. Then citing this reform as a red haring to cover up some conspiracy to try ot proove me wrong.


I'm done, but you shouldn't be. I know you don't want to admit it on this forum but at least look into it more until you realize whats REALLY going on in this country. Right now your basically defending cooperations having full run of the elections and let me tell you right now they are trying as hard as they can to do just that.

"Anything but bush!!! (Including unlimited cooperate campaign spending)"

Is kinda how your coming across to me. The way the law reads now individuals are EXEMPT from these rules you call unconstitutional as well as groups that don't take cooperate money. The constitution was written for individuals not groups or copperations.

You're basing your entire argument on the idea that these groups don't serve the people at all and instead serve corporate interests. That's silly, corporate interests have lobbyists. Groups like the NRA and ACLU represent the interests of the citizens. These groups are now shut down during election periods. These groups are a major voice of the people and get a lot more exposure then any one individual could possibly get. This stops individuals from getting together and effectively speaking out about politicians and legislation.

The constitution was written for citizens and these groups are collections of citizens. If you still don't agree, that this law is unconstitutional, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, some of the judges on the supreme court agreed that this is unconstitutional since it was not a unanimous decision. That means that there are some who do believe this to be unconstitutional.

We're not going to resolve this here, because this is a matter of opinion and it is likely that we are taking vastly different approaches. I am taking the approach of individual freedom and assemblies of citizens having the same rights as individual citizens. You appear to be taking the approach that groups of citizens have different rights then individual citizens.

Just agree to disagree, and have little bit of respect and dignity for your opponent.

Conclusion: It is my opinion that the supreme court has upheld uncontitutional laws and it is yours that they have not. Discussion over, have a nice day.

I did my military service back in israel, we get drafted every year for a month till the age of 45 :) i personally hate it :)

but if the country is at risk and my family's life is on the line i would go to fight without thinking twice.