Sunday, March 19, 2006

Wally, "How much does a congressional seat cost?"

Joe Schwarz’s re-election campaign has returned fire to the camp of Tim Walberg, who is challenging the incumbent for the 7th District GOP Congressional nomination this August.
On Thursday, Schwarz’s campaign Manager Matt Marsden posted a 558-word blog entry on the campaign’s Web site, referring to Walberg as “Wally” and calling him a “fringe Republican.”
“Wally is attempting to mask his inadequacies by recklessly attacking the incumbent Congressman on social issues. It’s not that these issues are unimportant—they are important—but they are eclipsed by the bread and butter issues that are on voters’ minds, such as jobs, education, national security and health care,” Marsden wrote.
Marsden also rips for Walberg for concentrating his efforts on Schwarz’s stance and record on legalized abortion, which he correctly notes that Congress cannot overturn.
“Walberg fails to accept that Congress has limited authority to restrict abortions. As a candidate for Congress, one would think Walberg understands this. Roe v. Wade cannot be overturned without a ruling from the Supreme Court, and were that to happen, it would be up to the various state legislatures and governors to ban abortions within their states," Marsden wrote.
Marsden also points out that Walberg has accepted $159,000 in out-of-state contributions, a fact The Adrian Insider first reported Jan. 30. “Can you say, ‘How much does a congressional seat cost?’” Marsden said.
Walberg, a former state representative from Tipton, has yet to Marsden’s commentary on his Web site.
Marsden’s probably trying to deflect Walberg’s recent radio ad criticism that Schwarz accepted $10,000 from Planned Parenthood’s PAC.
Candidates like Schwarz, political parties and even ordinary citizens – like The Adrian Insider – are using blogs for election dialogue in record amounts this campaign season, Kathy Barks Hoffman of Associated Press reported Saturday.

9 Comments:

Blogger Allan said...

Actually, Congress could overturn Roe v. Wade using its Article II Section III power to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stripping the powers of the Supreme Court would eliminate one of the most important of the checks and balances that prevent any of the three branches of government from becoming too powerful. Not only is it a horrible idea, but it would never fly with the Court or the American people.

On another note, the original post was very interesting. I have always been of the firm belief that Michigan politics and the Michigan people should be the deciding factor in our elections and it is interesting to follow where a candidate's money is coming from, especially when the trail leads out of state.

I look forward to more such factual reporting in the future. Good work!

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the previous poster: Have you READ Article II Section III of the Constitution?

"[The president] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. "

Article II doesn't even deal with Congress at all, and NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that Congress gets to cherry-pick which laws are and are not subject to judicial review.

4:24 PM  
Blogger Allan said...

Excuse me. It's Article III Section II. My mistake.

Since the Constitution came up, would you care to tell me what section of the Constitution contains gives judges the power to strike down laws? (Hint: it doesn't exist.)

I don't see how making juges into unelected, unaccountable dictators is part of our checks and balances. Maybe that's the Joe Schwarz definition.

9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

allan, the Senate makes the "judges for life" decision. Why do people constantly think a rep in the House has anything to do with confirming judges. First you quoted the wrong part of the constitution, and now you want us all to believe a representative's opinion regarding judicial advice and consent is even relevant? Who cares what he thinks about a hypothetical quesiton on approving judges. And, what was the first anonymous poster's reference to the money trail? Can anyone explain that to me?

5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

allan, the Senate makes the "judges for life" decision. Why do people constantly think a rep in the House has anything to do with confirming judges. First you quoted the wrong part of the constitution, and now you want us all to believe a representative's opinion regarding judicial advice and consent is even relevant? Who cares what he thinks about a hypothetical quesiton on approving judges. And, what was the first anonymous poster's reference to the money trail? Can anyone explain that to me? Is Schwarz getting all his money out of state? I sure hope not because I know he has a lot of support here in the district.

5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Article III Section II STILL doesn't give Congress the power to say "oh, sorry, we've decided this particular issue is immune from judicial review."

As to your other question, Article III states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." When someone is prosecuted under a clearly unconstitutonal law, what can the court do BUT overturn it?

Judges wouldn't strike down laws if idiot legislators didn't persist in writing laws that blatantly violate the constitution.

Are judges "unelected, unaccountable dictators"? Of course not. All they do is make sure legislators follow the constitution. Which, apparently, is out of fashion these days.

9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The money trail comment was in regards to where Walberg's money is coming from, not Schwarz's. Almost all of Tim Walberg's money is having to be pumped in from out of state because he has no support in the state, let alone the district.

2:18 PM  
Blogger The Adrian Insider said...

If you like this blog, pass the link along to others.
www.adrianinsider.blogspot.com

12:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Who links to me?