Posted on 03/27/2002 12:46:17 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
Constitutionality is not a small issue...if the bill is un-Constitutional why did Bush (knowingly) sign it?
By signing he shares the blame with anyone who wrote it or voted for it.
Couldn't he have achieved the same end by allowing it to become law WITHOUT his signature?
$100 to FreeRepublic says that will never happen. There will be injunctive relief from the courts faster than you can say "McComplain is a hypocritical jerk".....
IMHO, that's EXACTLY what you are doing, and what many of us are trying to do. Still, this is not the only issue on which Dubyuh has sold conservatism--and the conservatives--down the river!! We keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt and before we know it, come November '02 and '04, it becomes awful hard to make the case that Bush's presidency has advanced the conservative agenda one iota!! It's high time the GOP took some stands on some issues and fought the RATS tooth and nail, just so we can tell the Demoblicans from the Republocrats...these days, it's gettin' hard to tell the difference.
FReegards...MUD
After 8 years of Clinton, the natural reaction is to NOT trust the President, whomever he may be. I trust George W. Bush.
political calculation is how good work is accomplished and landmines are avoided. I get a little tired of the "blow yourself to bits" on principle, attitudes WE express here. That includes me.
WE are acting like taliban terrorists when we demand our leaders drink the hemlock of our principles, and end up killing every other good thing on the agenda in the process.
The "lose on principle" thing... it ain't workin' for us.
We need to wisen up. Making a political compromise is NOT the same as personal moral action on our part.
Bush did the right thing.
We need to avoid electing a clintoon in the midst of a world war... over the VERY minor issue of campaign finance reform. We can find other ways to excercise our free speech. Hell, those other ways might even be more effective than the pay for air time scenario. I for one think the killing of the NEA's EXTRACTION of payroll tax, for the support of democrats via "union dues", is actually a good thing.
Yes, it makes perfectly good sense. So what? The man took an oath to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, and he just deliberately and knowingly broke that oath. He has signed his name as an enemy of the Constitution. There is no measure of political gain that can justify that. How is it any different from Clinton's opportunism?
What in the world has happened here?
This place is full of "dubya" apologist spouting some "GRAND" plan.
The reality is it' s become a forum of "dubya" worshipers as bad as those old f.o.b.'s of the last decade.
Signing a anti- constitutional bill into law and then relying on LIBERAL courts to change the law is nothing more than rolling over yet again.
In fact the refusal of this administration to FIGHT for its own nominees to lower courts is as much a travesty as this damn bill....now law.
Thank god we have a "r" in the whitehouse.........glad you guys didn't waste your vote!
Can you give one example of this?
Then there's Roe-v-Wade, yadda yadda yadda. Get the picture? Neither I, you , or anyone else can trust the Supremes to do the right thing. Anyway, passing the buck by knowingly signing unconstitutional legislation is abbrogation of one's responsibilities! IT AIN'T LEADERSHIP.
To jwalsh07
Bush ain't gonna veto. He sees signing the bill as a win win. The courts will knock off the most egregious stuff, he THINKS he negates McCain and he KNOWS the public, who don't know or care, reaction to his signing will be a net positive.
I share your disappointment!
But I would add that I can see an air of pragmatism for signing this. A) The bill, as publicly percieved, cuts both ways. That why they don't care about it. B) Although the constitution manadates the President the authority to veto unconstitutional legislation, few Presidents ever use it. Presidents often will sign "popular" legislation knowing that there are provision that are blatantly unconstitutional. The line item veto, demanded by every president since Lincoln and signed into law by Clinton is one such law. Clinton used only once or twice before the courts struck it down. I don't think you will see such legislation enacted any time soon. The reasons for this is because the public rarely attributes the executive branch the political clout to interpret the consitution. Rememeber to the Dems and Inds, Bush is an idiot with no experience in government. He may be a good war leader but since when does he know about the constitution?? And if he does veto it, McCain will just bring it up again and again until someone signs it. Bush may just be doing us (and himself) a favor by getting this signed into law and letting the courts have at it. If the courts strike this down as a blattant violation of the 1st ammendment, as I hope they do, this is a dead issue. And McCain will have to hang his hat on something else to be noticed by the media.
So far, Bush has been very smart in dealing with the dems. He has probably concluded that frontal assault on "well meaning, all inclusive liberals" is not fitting the "New tone". So instead, he laying seige, stealing their lifeblood issues (sometimes to our dismay), closing in, and picking the sentries off as they stick their heads up (Daschle does it all to often!!). He feels that this may be the only way to defeat them as they have become so entrenched inside the beltway. But as seiges take time we may have to be patient and be ready to tacticle retreats as they throw hot oil down the wall.
Exactly! Dash-hole and the 'rats were not joyous the day that bill passed. They instinctively figured out as time went on that they were winning a battle the PUBLIC didn't give a DAMN about...and they weren't going to have an issue in '02 or '04 against the President. :) And the President's inherent strengths in raising $$ gives him an advantage--they were realizing their side was giving Bush a very big gun. (2nd Amendment reservations notwithstanding!)
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.