Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."
Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-581 next last
To: Aquamarine
Gee, and just think, a couple of weeks ago I got flamed by the Bush-Bots for daring to question their tangle tongued wonder child...

The Adults are in charge now...Buhahahahahahahaha

Wow, now we have CFR (of course the 'Bots are saying this is actually a "secret plan" by Dubya) and soon we'll have Amnesty for ILLEGALS (Rule of Law, yeah, right). Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I guess we should have taken Dubya seriously when he quipped "This would be easier if it was a Dictatorship...huh huh, of course with me as the Dictator"

151 posted on 03/20/2002 5:31:54 PM PST by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
Well now we know that Bush's oath to protect and defend the Constitution means as much to him as Clinton's marriage vows mean to him.
152 posted on 03/20/2002 5:31:59 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Kids 17 and under should NOT be allowed to support candidates with money.....they are not self-sufficient, and it's a perfect way for family members to funnel money to candidates. Besides, they cannot even sign most contracts, etc....unless they are emancipated.....then maybe....but as long as ma and pa are paying the bills....NO WAY!

What's wrong with family members funnelling money to candidates? If the parents don't object, and the money isn't being used to harm anyone, why shouldn't a kid be allowed to spend his own money how he wants?

153 posted on 03/20/2002 5:32:15 PM PST by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
it's called venting
154 posted on 03/20/2002 5:32:21 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
NOTE: from what I understand the Democrats stand to lose the most if CFR passes.....

I really doubt it, or they wouldn't have been so excited to pass it (dems). This gives the media a virtual monopoly 0-60 days prior to the election. It isn't Republicans that they will be promoting.

What does it matter anymore anyways - if the Republicans behave and vote like Democrats. Besides the war in Afghanistan, and my $300 rebate - I don't see much at all I like.

155 posted on 03/20/2002 5:32:37 PM PST by willa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Expecting it to fail in the courts is a mistake, it probably won't.
156 posted on 03/20/2002 5:33:22 PM PST by thepitts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: estrogen
The fact that the President has caved and trashed the Constitution allows me to speak freely. The plan I read, that he SHOULD have followed, is posted on this thread. I am now ashamed of the President, fearful for the Constitution, and have my work cut out for me.

Billybob

157 posted on 03/20/2002 5:33:23 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No what we should do is let every citizen send as much money as they want to who they want and if they are running for office, then they should post that donation on there website by sundown.
158 posted on 03/20/2002 5:35:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
How can I help?
159 posted on 03/20/2002 5:35:26 PM PST by Don Carlos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Does this rise to a level where impeachment is warranted?? ...

Hmmmmm a President who will not VETO an obviously UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of legislation....

In principle I would answer yes.. I think it would be a wake up call to remind our President and ALL our elected officials that they have taken an OATH to support and DEFEND the Constitution.....

Would I vote to impeach?? YES !! If it is clear that the President just doesn't understand his duty, and see's nothing wrong with signing this and passing the buck to the SCOTUS...

160 posted on 03/20/2002 5:35:56 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
We all have work to do. We need to go back to FReeping the White House.
161 posted on 03/20/2002 5:36:11 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Askel5; nunya bidness

ABC News’s This Week - January 23, 2000

GEORGE WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

GEORGE BUSH: That’s an interesting question. I — I — "yes I would."


"A Betrayal" - Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation

Republicans Cave on Campaign Finance

((((((((Read my lips))))))))

SHOW BUSH THE DOOR IN 2004

162 posted on 03/20/2002 5:37:05 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
No what we should do is let every citizen send as much money as they want to who they want and if they are running for office, then they should post that donation on there website by sundown.

AMEN !!!

163 posted on 03/20/2002 5:37:10 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: dittomom
We need a cruise to get over the mad!!!
164 posted on 03/20/2002 5:37:37 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: thepitts
SIGNING it in the first place is a BIGGER mistake !!
165 posted on 03/20/2002 5:39:09 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Are you serious about this? Who will you support instead of him?
166 posted on 03/20/2002 5:39:35 PM PST by BonnieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
(Psst.Dont bet your retirement on it not happening.)
167 posted on 03/20/2002 5:40:40 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
Companies can't vote either should they be able to make contributions?

Companies are made up of people, who can vote.

168 posted on 03/20/2002 5:40:56 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: NEPA
Damn him. Just another low life politician who doesn't give a rat's butt about the constitution or the U.S. It's all about getting and keeping power.

Yep!! And he is on his way to Monterey, Mexico tomorrow to meet with Co-President Vicente Fox to sell the rest of America down the tubes for a few Mexican votes. Since 245(i) passed the house, he has his little suprise package in his pocket. It's sickening!!

169 posted on 03/20/2002 5:40:56 PM PST by Brownie74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: erk

170 posted on 03/20/2002 5:41:15 PM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
In terms of hard money, the GOP will make out like bandits with this bill.

Is this a case of the Repubs playing Brier Rabbit ??

171 posted on 03/20/2002 5:41:23 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Can someone tell me why he is signing this bill? If he were governing by the polls, he would veto it, right? An earlier post indicates 78% of people think he should veto it. If he weren't governing by the polls, as he would seem not to be, then he is likely acting on principle, or trying to ensure a smoother working relationship with, and among, the Congress. So which of the two is it?
172 posted on 03/20/2002 5:41:34 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
So, should we allow non-citizens to send money too?

Louis Freeh and Charles G. LaBella weren't able to convince the Diesel Dyke to appoint an independent counsel to investigate that issue vis a vis the 1996 presidential campaign. Hence non-citizens sent so much Charlie Trie had an OSHA claim for a back injury.

173 posted on 03/20/2002 5:42:13 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: jurisdog
It seems like so many of the posters here are against CFR because of the concept that soft money contributions are a form of free speech under the constitution.

Am I missing some other reasons most people here are against this? I'm sort of up in the air at the moment, and trying to determine what I think.

CFR wasn't even on the back burner until Clinton suddenly announced that we needed it. Why did he say that? To change the subject from the fact that he had been caught redhanded violating existing campaign laws! So passing and signing CFR is, in the first instance, (barf alert!) vindication of x42.

The irony of the matter is that in fact politics should be banned from the "public airwaves." Of course you shouldn't do it by halves, as in CFR--journalism is politics and should be banned from the public airwaves.

And that is because the fundamental aspect of freedom of speech and press is equality before the law. Broadcasting as we know it could not exist if everyone had an equal right to broadcast--so the only way to make us all politically equal (within the limits of our respective pocketbooks) is to ban political broadcasting by anybody.

174 posted on 03/20/2002 5:42:40 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Of course, Bush was against "campaign finance reform" during his run for president. He has "flipped-flopped" on this issue. I think we need a law about "campaign speech reform." What do you think?
175 posted on 03/20/2002 5:43:17 PM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: erk
"...and I will sign them into law"

...and I won't vote for him again.

176 posted on 03/20/2002 5:45:00 PM PST by OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Baltar
The Bush-Bots... and yes I've been one, had to believe in him. There was no other choice. Alot of them like me took to the streets during the election fiasco clinging to the last chance that this country had to pull out of the wreck that we had been living in under the Clinton Administration.
I fought for him and hoped and prayed that he would fight for me.
177 posted on 03/20/2002 5:45:01 PM PST by Aquamarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
No what we should do is let every citizen send as much money as they want to who they want and if they are running for office, then they should post that donation on there website by sundown.

Citizens who can vote.

Kids sending money were really parents sending money in their kids' names.

Look, I'm for anybody being able to donate as much as they want. But, as long as we're limiting, let's keep non-residents from sending money to campaigns for Senate and the House. That would keep the Hollywood money in California.

178 posted on 03/20/2002 5:45:31 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: dead
I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!!!!

I am so sick and tired of Bush selling us out, and even though he's supposed to be better than Gore, that beatnik won't get my vote if he keeps up this kind of back-stabbing nonsense!

179 posted on 03/20/2002 5:45:46 PM PST by mrb1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
If you're old enough to die for you country, you're damn well old enough to vote for the man that leads you.

IMHO, of course.

180 posted on 03/20/2002 5:46:09 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Can someone tell me why he is signing this bill? If he were governing by the polls, he would veto it, right? An earlier post indicates 78% of people think he should veto it.

To take an issue away from Mcain-Feingold. If he vetoed it Mcain and the demos have an issue. Now McCain will be quiet as this goes court and hopefully be shot down and what's McCain going to do then? Trash the Supreme Court?

The press would have a field day if he vetoed.

BTW, joe sixpack doesn't really care about this and that 78% figure you saw was an online poll, which is not scientific or accurate.

181 posted on 03/20/2002 5:46:10 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The plan you outlined can still be implemented. In fact, it actually requires him to sign the bill. I'm disappointed, but I will stick with him - at least until after the mid-term elections. We really need to get back control of the senate. Remember, if it weren't for Jeffords this would be a non-issue.
182 posted on 03/20/2002 5:46:41 PM PST by erk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Apologies for length - desperate times demand desperate measures:

THE DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE

In Disgrace, March 20, 2002, THE BINDING CONCENSUS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a government to strengthen the political bands which have controlled the people, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the collective and superior station to which the Laws of Nature entitle it, a minimal respect to the opinions of mankind requires that it should declare the causes which impel it to the suppression.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all creatures are evolved unequally, that they are imbued by their environment with certain insurmountable obstacles, that among these are fear, panic, and the pursuit of survival.

That to overcome these obstacles, Governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the incompetence of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Protest becomes destructive to the Government, it is the Right of the Government to suppress or abolish it, and to institute more Government, building anew on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to it shall seem most likely to effect the peoples’ safety and security. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while conditions are sufferable, than to endanger themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce it under absolute anarchy, it is the Government’s right, it is its duty, to throw off such protest, and to provide new Guards for its future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of this Government; and such is now the necessity which constrains it to alter its former Systems of Political Expression. The history of the present electoral finance system is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over this Government. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It has refused its assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

It has allowed its contributors to pass money of immediate and pressing influence, unless suspended in its operation till more money should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has utterly neglected to account for them.

It has refused to submit to other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, forcing those people to relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and disproportionally beneficial to large corporations only.

It has called together legislative bodies at positions unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public campaigns, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with its measures.

It has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for acquiescing with reservation to the fundraising of the people.

It has allowed, for a long time, after such fundraising, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have not returned to the Incumbents at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of political change from without, and convulsions within.

It has endeavoured to prevent the population of these houses; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Reelection of Incumbents; attempting to pass others to encourage their elections hither, and reducing the terms of new Appropriations of Office.

It has obstructed the administration of Justice, by refusing its Assent to Laws for establishing reform using Judiciary powers.

It has made Judges dependent on their will alone, for the integrity of their offices, against the amount and payment of its influence.

It has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Lobbyists to harass our Representatives, and eat out their time.

It has kept among us, in times of adjournment, standing Lobbies without the request of our members.

It has effected to render the Lobbies independent of and superior to the Civil power.

It has combined together to subject us to Governments foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of Political Influence:

For quartering large bodies of foreign troops at taxpayer expense:

For protecting them, by mock Protestations, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these Countries:

For cutting off our Most Favored Nation Trade Status:

For imposing Tax Cuts on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Legal Immunity:

For transporting us beyond Washington to be accountable for pretended offences:

For challenging the free system of Eminent Domain in every Province, establishing therein an arbitrary militia, and enlarging its Membership so as to render it once an example and fit instrument for opposing the absolute rule of this Government:

For taking away our perquisites, abolishing our most valuable privileges, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Government:

For suspending our usual business, and declaring itself invested with power to influence us in all cases whatsoever.

It has usurped Government here, by declaring itself independent of our Protection and waging media campaigns against us.

It has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, polluted our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.

It is at this time transporting large quantities of foreign goods to compleat the works of profit, pollution and monopoly, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the economy of a socialist nation.

It has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the capitalist market to protest against their Government, to become the executioners of their plans and propaganda, or to fall themselves by their schemes.

It has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the beneficiaries of our programs, the pitiful poor and ignorant, whose known rule of protest, is an undistinguished destruction of all representatives, senators and judges.

In every stage of these Insurrections We have Legislated for Reform in the most humble terms: Our repeated Assistance has been answered only by repeated criticism. An Insurrection, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Rebellion, is unfit to be the representative of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our fellow citizens. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their lobbyists to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our election and establishment here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Authority, and hold them, as we hold the rest of the population, Enemies in Protest, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the Federal Government, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Good Sense of our Constituents, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the Good Representatives of this Government, solemnly publish and declare, That this Government is, and of Right ought to be Free of Political Pressure; that it is Absolved from all Accountability to the Special Interests; and that all political connection between them and the Representatives of this Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Sovereign Government, it has full power to levy taxes, establish regulations, monitor compliance, punish noncompliance, and to do all other Acts and Things which Sovereign Governments may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Approval of Public Opinion, we mutually pledge to each other our Staffs, our Votes and our Public Support.

183 posted on 03/20/2002 5:46:46 PM PST by EIOBX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: deadhead
I can't believe he is going to sign this, I am so pissed off, I'd like to take him behind the barn and beat some sense into him.
184 posted on 03/20/2002 5:47:09 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Would I vote to impeach?? YES !!

I'd reply, david, but I'm afraid you'd turn me into a thread.

185 posted on 03/20/2002 5:47:25 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: erk
Dubya is just a mouth piece of his handlers.
186 posted on 03/20/2002 5:48:01 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
I said that a year ago and got flamed ;o)
187 posted on 03/20/2002 5:48:20 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
And who will he pass on the way out the door?
188 posted on 03/20/2002 5:48:47 PM PST by erk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Dane
To take an issue away from Mcain-Feingold. If he vetoed it Mcain and the demos have an issue.

In the last month it appears Bush has taken away 90% of the demos' issues. Soon they'll have nothing to run on in 2002/04, because Bush will have coopted the majority of their platform. That'll be great, huh?

189 posted on 03/20/2002 5:49:54 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Bush has guaranteed his re-election with this signature, since hard money limits are doubled, and Bush raised more hard money than any candidate in history in 2000. And, for those who think most Republicans are going to vote against Bush because of CFR, think again.

You're probably right. This will help Bush politically in a lot of ways, and most Republicans will eventually overlook his decision (in fact, there are probably a good number of Republicans who want CFR). And there's also a good chance the Supreme Court will shoot down CFR.

But I'm still upset. Despite the political advantages offered by CFR, it's still a bad law. But Bush is supporting it anyway. This means one of two things:

a). Bush also thinks it's a bad law, but he's putting politics over principle. Granted, that may be necessary in political life, but not on an issue this big.
b). Bush really does support this law, meaning that we have a President with a serious misunderstanding of (or disregard for) the Constitution.

What's the value of having a Republican president if he's constantly having to abandon conservative principles?

190 posted on 03/20/2002 5:51:40 PM PST by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Nice theory, but I prefer Presidents who follow the constitution, and the values of it, regardless of politics.

I think we should just call it the "Constipation", as all it seems to be doing is only temporarily stopping the Marxists from taking over this country. The plug will fail and the poop will hit the fan.

191 posted on 03/20/2002 5:51:45 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I agree, that is the only reason he is signing this. I still feel uneasy about using the Court for this type of politics, though, and it is a bit risky. I just don't like it.
192 posted on 03/20/2002 5:51:46 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: willa
I really doubt it, or they wouldn't have been so excited to pass it (dems). This gives the media a virtual monopoly 0-60 days prior to the election. It isn't Republicans that they will be promoting.

CFR is such a deal for Republicans. Such a deal.

If it's such a deal for Republicans, why are John McCain and Tom Daschle the biggest thugs forcing it through?

CFR empowers the media--90% Democrat. Such a deal for Republicans.

193 posted on 03/20/2002 5:52:15 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Citizens who can vote.

The first amendment doesn't apply to only citizens who can vote. At least, it didn't used to. Now it means all sorts of different things. Indians and the media have more rights than the proletariat in this bill.

Kids sending money were really parents sending money in their kids' names.

Only in convoluted bs campaign finance laws. If citizens could donate what they want, when they want, to whom they want, all of that bs goes away.

Look, I'm for anybody being able to donate as much as they want. But, as long as we're limiting, let's keep non-residents from sending money to campaigns for Senate and the House. That would keep the Hollywood money in California

No. Just more abridging of the first amendment.

194 posted on 03/20/2002 5:52:24 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: dead
If I wanted that kind of integrity, I could have voted for Gore.

Yep, that's the kind of integrity that FReepers like sinkspur admire.
195 posted on 03/20/2002 5:53:09 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Yes, and the "mainstream media" will solidify their positions as the "state" sanctioned "kingmakers"!!
196 posted on 03/20/2002 5:53:33 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I would like to hear your reply...

David

197 posted on 03/20/2002 5:53:57 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: erk
I have to say that I believe Bush defecated in the recumbent sleeping structure on this one. I voted for the man but can't support him signing this flawed legislation.

Mark your calendars, kiddies ... I'm speechless.

198 posted on 03/20/2002 5:53:57 PM PST by strela
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
CFR empowers the media--90% Democrat

Worth repeating.

199 posted on 03/20/2002 5:54:31 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
"Does this rise to a level where impeachment is warranted?? ..."

Hmmmmm a President who will not VETO an obviously UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of legislation.... In principle I would answer yes.. I think it would be a wake up call to remind our President and ALL our elected officials that they have taken an OATH to support and DEFEND the Constitution.....

Passing and signing unconstitutional law is not illegal. A politician can not go to jail for it. It's that seperation of powers thing -- ya know the Constitution.

200 posted on 03/20/2002 5:55:49 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-581 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson