Posted on 03/28/2002 2:52:13 AM PST by The Wizard
This is why I think he didn't veto this bill. He's has an Ace up his sleeve.
Way too much hysterics on FR regarding this bill. And I thought Conservatives were suppose to be the cool, rational types. . .
Those are true words. Long live Joe Paterno. Now the PartyLine crowd will say:
*The SC will strike it down (although they dont KNOW that - and would that mean that if they dont strike it down, then in a vacuum Bush is all bad?) No, it just means you have lost some more freedoms, that of free speech - no biggie, move along now.
I initially thought he would veto this bill. JohnHuang2 thought he would sign it, and posted his opinion before the Presiident announced his intentions.
My clue to understanding the President's methods and reasoning was the content of the bill itself, coupled with the increased talk about Enron as the bill moved through the Senate. When the President asked for the bill to be effective immediately, and the Rats wouldn't even put THAT measure in, I think the President realized the bill was veto bait.
I still thought he would veto it, but when he didn't, I asked myself "why?" We all know he has political capital built up. We know that he takes his job seriously. I couldn't understand at first, because signing the bill seemed out of character to someone who ditched Kyoto and pushed missile defense in the face of media and democrat opposition.
BUT, we also know a couple other things that I failed to consider. Conservative judges are being held up (Pickering, for example). It is obvious that any conservative appointment is going to be blocked. Daschle and others have also been making noises about holding up funding of the war. The ONLY way to get this stopped is by keeping the House and taking back the Senate. Vetoing the bill would have allowed a big campaign against Bush but more importantly against Republicans in the fall elections. I think Bush was willing to take the hit from people like you in order to remove an issue that would have endangered the Senate elections.
In the best of all possible worlds, President Bush could have done a public veto and made a speech to the American people, who would have supported him. In the REAL world, President Bush cannot get air time for anything except the war, and once he had vetoed this bill the entire Republican party would have been on defensive.
So, I believe that John was right after all. In my opinion getting the Senate back is THE priority politically, followed by getting a larger majority in the House. If we lose, we lose the war, pure and simple. I have explained my thinking on this earlier.
Here is an analogy: before we began the war in Afghanistan, many here were growing impatient. Where were the ground troops? Why weren't we bombing now? AFTER the war in Afghanistan began, it was easier to see that the deliberate and understated way we prosecuted the war was the right thing to do.
You are just going to have to accept that some people think this may have been the best course. I accept that you don't. Time will tell who is right.
Shameless shill alert
Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)
Special to FreeRepublic | 23 March 2002 | Congressman Billybob (John Armor)
Posted on 3/23/02 5:13 PM Central by Congressman Billybob
Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)
As many of you know, one of your colleagues, Congressman Billybob (John Armor, Esq., in real life) will file one of the briefs in the US Supreme Court in opposition to Shays-Meehan.
He will file it on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, which believes in protecting and enforcing the Constitution as written. One of its Advisory Board members is the Hon. Robert Bork.
This brief does not depend on your responses to this notice. It will be filed in any event. But all FReepers who wish to play a role in the effort to have Shays-Meehan declared unconstitutional, are invited to contribute what they choose to the ACRU. It is a tax-deductible, legal charity.
All who contribute at least $25 will receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Please visit the ACRU site to confirm that their vision of the Constitution is the same as yours, and the same as that of Jim Robinson and FreeRepublic.
Then if you wish to help, mail your checks to:
American Civil Rights Union,br> 3213 Duke Street
Number 625
Alexandria, VA 22314
Be sure to include your name and address if you wish to receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Write "FreeRepublic" on the memo line of your check so we know you responded to this appeal. Include your screen name if you would like to be thanked publicly on this thread. Do NOT send any contributions greater than $100. Reserve such large donations for FreeRepublic.
You will NOT get on any mailing list, snail mail, e-mail, or otherwise, by responding to this request. All information will be kept in strict confidence, unless you include your screen name so you can be thanked on this thread by that name.
By the way, the ACRU was the client for the very successful brief also filed by Congressman Billybob in the Bush/Florida case. The text of that brief was posted on FreeRepublic in December, 2000.
If you have any questions about this message, please
contact: congressmanbillybob@earthlink.net
Thank you for your consideration of this request for help. (Both Congressman Billybob and the American Civil Rights Union are entirely independent of FreeRepublic. However, this request is being posted with the permission of Jim Robinson.)
Valin says, Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is.
And now back to the thread.
Must respectfully disagree, my friend. For this reason: unconstitutional, however it is sliced, is still unconstitutional.
That's right. And he knew it. But signed it anyway, hoping the Supremes would do his dirty work for him. So a president who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States signed a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation. And Republicans clap and cheer. Unless I was delusional during the 1990s, this was one of their chief complaints about Clinton: disregard for the Constitution. I guess it's OK when Republicans do it.
Miss Marple, with all due respect, I think NittanyLion can express his own opinions and was quite clear as to the rationalization aspect of it.
and the bad parts will be strck down
Do you know that? No you don't. I don't. Bush doesn't.
He may have played the game so smart and was so much of a genius, and he could have overplayed his hand taking his chances with the courts. How many gun laws have been overturned? Dred Scot was constitutional as well.
Bush could have ended this real quickly with a veto. This hurts him. He's going to be hit from the right flank now. Bush I didn't take his right flank seriously. He lost.
Signed,
m1911
I fall into the 98% of the population who could care less about CFR. When Daschle allowed the bill to come before the Senate, I thought to myself, sheesh, there are so many more important concerns, why are we wasting our time with this one. I'm ready to drill in ANWR, I could handle another tax cut, let's fill these judicial vacancies, we've got work to do. Hell, there's a war going on and we're wasting legislative time on political contributions.
I'm glad it's over and done with. Bush plainly stated he considers several aspects of the bill unconstitutional, practically paving the way for the SCOTUS to rectify it. He's still got my vote.
I agree, though I doubt this article will be enough to calm the lynch mob at FR even slightly. On a thread yesterday, they were ready to lynch me, along with the president, for agreeing that part of the bill may be unconstitutional, giving clear reasons, AND also explaining that I'm not going to d@mn the president because, considering that the rest of the bill is good, and given the fact that he knew he'd been set up into a lose-lose situation, he made what he felt was the best choice.
We have political leaders who are willing to play "kill free speech spin the bottle". Speech is now more restricted than pornography, burning the flag, obscenity on T-shirts and belly dancing...lol.
I'm sure that George Mason, author of the Bill of Rights would be proud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.