President Bush on Monday signed a bill that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the American flag can be displayed.
Oh thank god! we can all sleep well tonight knowing that our president has his priorities in order!!!
You have a problem with this? I certainly don't.
Actually, the President only signs or vetoes bills, he doesn't legislate them.
Oh I will not sleep at all tonight realizing hysteric rabidly ignorant political know nothings on the Freeper Fringes vote count the same mine does! Simply amazing to discover their are people are so rabidly ignorant and partisan bigoted, that they cannot grasp even the simplest BASIC principals of US Civics.
It gets really amazing when they aggressively demonstrate they really are so intellectually crippled they believe the President can only do one thing at a time.
BASIC Civics lesson for the Perpetually Bitching. Tattoo this on the back of your hands so you all remember it next time before you post. Congress passed the Law, he has only a set number of days to sign, veto or pocket it.
But of course the rabid Bush haters don't care about factual reality, all they care about is finding the next reason to throw their daily childish temper tantrum over!
What I'm trying to find in my copy of the Constitution is where exactly does either the Congress or the President have the legal right or power to enact such legislation.
Don't get me wrong... I proudly have a US Flag flying on my front porch, right next to the sign with the revolver that says "We don't call 911". And any a$$ho!e who tried to burn or desecrate a flag in my presence would either end up in the hospital or I'd end up in jail.
But still, there is a very important principle here- the Congress and the President have only the power that they are allowed by the US Constitution- no more. This is 1.) a state's rights situation and 2.) an abridgement of legal contractual rights.
As to #1, the Fed Gov doesn't have the power to regulate behavior or most anything else within the boundaries of the sovereign states. That is the province of the state itself. The FedGov is usurping state's power by attempting to regulate this type of thing, and it should be struck down by the USSC as being beyond the power of the FedGov.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
--James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45
As to #2, legal contracts are pretty much sacred under the Constitution. The FedGov doesn't have the power or authority to control or regulate consensual parties to a legal contract. A homeowner's association- which is what this is aimed at- has entered into a contract with the homeowners upon purchase of their property, usually by contractual agreement with the bylaws, etc. of the association. If someone doesn't like the bylaws, they either work to change them, or don't buy the property covered under such a contract.
So under both of these precepts, the FedGov doesn't have any right to try to regulate any of this. This is election year grandstanding, just like the flag burning laws, and most other krap™, attempting to sway sub-moron IQ voters during election years.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
--Thomas Jefferson
"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
--Edmund A. Opitz
"There is no distinctly native American criminal class... save Congress."
--Mark Twain
I can sleep well tonight knowing you're not the President.
Stuffit!
Actually, there is a time for critisism.
This isn't it.
Congress is going to pass laws.
The President generally is going to sign them.
This is a good law in my view. Therefore, rather then spending time passing not so good or destructive laws...they budgeted their time to do some good. Even though it's of a more minimal scale then larger legislation I'd like passed, I'm not going to disrespect the small victories.
Also, a widely known secret is just about everything done in D.C. is political. Politicians singing God Bless America on the capitol steps after 9-11 was political. Oh, some may have been sincere but the majority of them? I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now.
So what if this is political. It addresses an actually need and, again, imo done the correct way. The only time I get upset with "pandering", is when it's obvious it's going nowhere...and possibly being used as a distraction. As with the gay marriage ban. I support the amendment, but knew it didn't have the votes among RINO's let alone Democrats for 2/3rd's. They were simply trying to buy upset constituents off by voting on something that would not pass in an elective year on an issue they hadn't paid any attention to for two years. Now THAT is worth complaining about, which I did. Greatly.
This? The law passed and was signed. With little fanfare, it's certainly not in the top 10 on the evening broadcast is it? No complaints or snark from this corner for a good law passing. Election year or not.