Posted on 05/06/2003 12:08:41 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Amen!
But if he would have done this it would have ruined his brilliant strategery.
If clinton would have signed this into law the same people defending President Bush would be howling for clintons hide. Thats the truth.
Bottom line: I am betting my reputation (and my membership in the US Supreme Court Bar) that the SC will either adopt the findings of unconstitutionality laid down by the trial court, or go further and strike additional parts of the law. In my brief in the SC I'll be urging that the Court go further.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"
Latest article, now up on UPI and FR, "The Iraqi Constitution"
However, I fully understand the politics of quietly signing the bill (no ceremony at all), and let the courts slap it down. I offer one additional reason for that course of action:
If a President vetos a bill and claims it's "unconstitutional," the immediate partisan response is, "Says who? Don't the courts have the ultimate power to say that?" That argument would have some traction with some constitutional fools in the US -- and we have an ample supply of those.
On the other hand, if the trial court says its unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court agrees just before the 2004 election (which is now the schedule), that argument falls apart. The President is clearly right for raising questions about the constitutionality of this Act, and McCain-Feingold are obviously wrong for pushing through an Act that is clearly unconstitutional.
By a narrow margin (because I am an absolutist myself), I agree that Bush made the correct call on the CFR Act.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"
Latest article, now up on UPI and FR, "The Iraqi Constitution"
Absolutely correct!
...as its the President's job is to defend the constitution not trash it.
Yes but not the president's alone! The fact is that EVERY one of 435 congressmen and 100 senators swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution EVERY time they are sworn in just as the president does. That being the case, this horrid mess should never have reached the president's desk much less been signed into law!
The founders NEVER intended that 9 folks in black robes should be the ONLY arbitors of the Constitution! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!
What they DID INTENDED was that each every one of those congressmen, senators, and the president would recall, and remain faithfull to, his OATH of office every time he cast a vote, or signed a bill into law! In fact, it was intended by them that EVERY citizen would also be an arbitor of the Constitution and that he would throw out of office any public servant who failed to adhear to the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Constitution and his oath! That is what was INTENDED, somehow, it's not working that way!
Bush blew an opportunity to veto the bill, make the RATS look bad, and give a nice speech about defending our Rights.
Instead, he signed the bill, which violated the first amendment. This angered many conservatives, and legitimately so. Some are still upset about, as they should be whenever any politician attempts to infringe upon our Rights.
Now, the RAT candidate will be able to criticize for Bush for signing such a flawed bill into law since it was overturned. He'll be criticized for not vetoing it and forcing Congress to pass a better bill.
All in all, it probably won't be that big a deal during the election except as one more sticking point for some conservatives. The American people really don't care about CFR, otherwise McCain and Bradley would have won their respective nominations.
Not only that, but the RATS will have bigger things to focus on such as massive budget deficits, a sluggish economy, and the Patriot Act.
The early Presidents (at least up through Jackson) believed in this doctrine since it is the correct one.
If memory serves me correct, some even took it to the extreme that the SOLE reason they could veto a bill was that it violated the Constitution.
So you agree that he has broken his Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States for political expediency?
Is this something that you admire in a President?
Agreed. Bush will never please all conservatives all the time; there are just too many flavors of conservatives. Not even Reagan could do it.
Consider this. By not vetoing the bill and allowing the courts to gut the offensive provisions, we got the hard money limit increased, which will mean a lot to pubbie candidates who bring in lots more hard money than the Dims.
I understand all the political gamesmanship that went on and is still going on. But still it is a chink in GW's armor that he decided, since the feckless congress critters put it on his desk, to sign the bill into law and let the courts kill it.
I wonder if anyone knows how much money it has cost the taxpayers to remove the obviously unConstitutional portions of this bill?
But money isn't the big reason GW should have vetoed it. Principle is.
In general I think GW is a man of principle. But on this one he crapped in his mess kit.
If he loses, it won't be because of a single issue, rather many issues.
Not even Reagan could do it.
Conservatives didn't always agree with Reagan, but it was clear that he was working toward an objective of lower taxes, and smaller gov't. That is no longer the case.
Can you imagine Bush, or any of his advisors, saying that the "govt is not the solution to our problems, gov't is the problem"?
we got the hard money limit increased, which will mean a lot to pubbie candidates who bring in lots more hard money than the Dims.
Money doesn't win elections. If it did, Perot would have been elected President, and Huffington and North would have won Senate seats in 1994.
Money WILL get name recognition. But once you get past a certain point, it doesn't do much and can even hurt as some voters will vote against the "big money guy".
???By your logic, when the courts strike down laws the congress passes(not so easy), that have been signed by the President, he somehow broke his Oath of office? The courts decide what's constitutional(civics 101). The President is merely letting them do their job. When BUSH signed the CFR he said it was better than nothing, it was. The hard dollar limit was raised for the first time since 1974. Let the Supremes sort out the rest, it's a mess no matter what they do.
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.