Ashcroft’s Unconstitutional Problem

National Review Online | February 25, 2002 | Rich Lowery

[LavaDog]

Here's another snapshot of Washington working to reassure the American people that politics is a clean, above-board business: Attorney General John Ashcroft will soon be defending a law that he clearly thinks is unconstitutional.

The calculation of the White House is that it is easier to sign Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold than to veto it, or even — amazingly enough — to ask the Senate to change the constitutionally dubious parts.

The idea is that the courts can be counted on to throw out the worst parts of the bill, while the Bush machine merrily vacuums up even more hard money for 2004 than it did for 2000 (feel reassured about the idealism of Washington politics yet?).

The wrinkle in this admittedly clever tack is that President Bush doesn't simply sign the bill and passively watch the courts excise the unconstitutional bits for him. By signing the bill, he puts the weight of his administration behind the law.

So, the courts may eventually throw parts of it out, but it will be the Bush administration urging it not to.

In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out.

Hey, no one said "cleaning up Washington" would be pretty.

If it were just White House operatives tainting themselves by this calculation, that would be one thing. But Attorney General Ashcroft, among others, will have to twist himself into knots to serve the White House calculation.

Even supporters of campaign-finance reform admit portions of the legislation are probably unconstitutional. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Ashcroft thinks it's unconstitutional as well, at least judging by his statements when he served in the Senate.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in an issues survey during Ashcroft's 2000 reelection campaign, characterized the senator's position as being that McCain-Feingold is "unconstitutional."

A quick Nexis search pulls up a bunch of Ashcroft statements during the 1997 debate criticizing the bill for limiting political expression. Ashcroft says:

— that "the answer is not broad, new campaign-finance legislation that threatens core political speech."

— that "there is nothing closer to the heart of liberty itself. There's nothing closer to the core of what it means to be free people than to have free, uninhibited, unbridled capacity in the culture and among its citizens to speak politically."

— that the bill is a "shocking outrage to the conscience of freedom-loving Americans."

The administration will soon be defending a version of this bill in court.

What most administrations do, when confronted with a bill of dubious constitutionality, is ask the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to give an opinion of it. That way, an administration can avoid getting itself in the position of defending unconstitutional laws.

One would think, then, that at the very least the Bush administration would ask the Justice Department about the constitutionality of Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold.

Unless it just doesn't care to know.

[Uncle Bill]

Will Bush now sign CFR and Lie Again? - ***I predict GWB Will VETO CFR***

The torture of Bushbology.

"Is" was simple.

"Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."

Just cross out Clinton's name and put in Jorge Bush. Illegal amnesty

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.

Illegal amnesty

Government News Keywords: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, SOVEREIGNTY
Source: The Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Published: Thursday, October 26, 2000 Author: editorial
Posted on 10/26/2000 07:27:11 PDT by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

President Bill Clinton is demonstrating his disdain for the responsibility of U.S. citizenship by promoting legislation that would award amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Joined by congressional Democrats, Mr. Clinton would simply allow those individuals who broke the law in entering this country to be forgiven their transgressions.

So adamant is Clinton about the amnesty that he is willing to tie up the federal budget over the issue. Clinton has attached the amnesty measure to appropriations legislation, obscuring the amnesty issue from public hearings and providing no opportunity for any study of its impact.

But the amnesty cheapens the efforts of those millions who have immigrated to this country by legal means and have become constructive citizens. It would reward lawlessness and subterfuge and add a tremendous financial burden to border states. According to one study, the net cost of a similar amnesty in 1986 was more than $78 billion.

Even worse, an amnesty would spark another wave of illegal immigration. It's estimated that 3 million illegal immigrants poured across the borders after the 1986 amnesty.

Tying the amnesty to federal appropriations is a political ploy designed to appeal to immigrant voters in those border states. But those voters should see through the Democrats' posturing and demand diligent control of our borders.

The United States always has welcomed the teeming masses, yearning to be free. But the nation has a duty to make sure that those who enter are willing to accept the responsibility of that freedom. Granting amnesty to those who have ignored the law of the land mocks that freedom.

"President of the United States Wants To Grant Amnesty Up To 4 Million Illegal Aliens"

AN AMNESTY BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL AN AMNESTY

---

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF GEORGE W. BUSH

Statement by the President

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html

---

The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

GOV. BUSH: I do.

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

GOV. BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

---

George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"

Bush says he won't legalize illegal immigrants

Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"

Bush Proposing "Amnesty" for Illegal Aliens

INS Commissioner James Ziglar addressed a meeting of the National Immigration Forum on Friday, where he reiterated the Bush administration's support for an amnesty benefiting illegal aliens from Mexico and support for the Section 245(i)

Immigration "Amnesty" Passes House - Fox News

Congress OKs "Amnesty" for Illegal Aliens

House clears "amnesty" bill under pressure from Bush

President Bush yesterday called on the Senate to pass a bill that would grant "amnesty" to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens

Darkness By Design For "Amnesty" Move

"There are more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the country who are eligible to become legal permanent residents" - George W. Bush

AMNESTY by BUSH - The Truth about Section 245(i)

INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filings

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment.
Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)?

Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.

You might need section 245(i) if you:

• Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
  
• Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
  
• Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
  
• Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
  
• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
  
• Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
  
• Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
  
• Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
  
• Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."

LINK

"Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies--a constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders." - July 2, 2001 - ROBERT L. BARTLEY - Editor of The Wall Street Journal
"Another amnesty for undocumented aliens is already in the air"

George W. Bush In Firm Agreement With Communist Party:

Communist Party USA - Proposed Resolution against Racism and for Immigrant Rights

A] Open unlimited immigration into the USA - Jorge W. Bush - President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso

B] Compulsory bi-lingual education for all adults and their families of whatever country or cultural background. Federal prohibition of " English Only" - English, Huh? Bush firmly rejected “English-only,” which has caused problems among Hispanics. “I support English-plus, not English-only,” said Bush.
“English-only says to me that if Hispanic happens to be your heritage, you’re not part of the process.”

C] Extension of all existing labor and workplace protection laws, and the right to redress under them for all immigrant workers, documented or not. Bush to support measure to be introduced in Congress that grants Illegal Aliens the same rights in the workplace as U.S. citizens.

D] Support for the AFL-CIO policy on amnesty, and a call for a major AFL-CIO drive in all minority communities, and that consciously strategies to avoid any attempts to "whipsaw" one community against another. George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, take your pick.

President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 21, 2002

Remarks by the President in El Paso Welcome
El Paso International Airport
El Paso, Texas

Policy in Focus: U.S. - Mexico Border Partnership Agreement

11:33 A.M. MST

To read the rest of the "open border" words in the day of the life of George W. Bush, please click the link below:

President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso

President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso - Free Republic
"Mexico is an incredibly important part of the futuro de los Estados Unidos. (Applause.) And the border, la frontera, is a very important part of our relationship."

US Aims To Dismantle Borders

Bush to Open Country to Mexican Truckers

U.S. and Mexico to Open Talks on Freer Migration for Workers - "There's going to be an interesting debate about amnesty" and the guest-worker programs"

In Mexico, Daschle, Gephardt give strongest support yet to more open borders, immigration reform

"President of the United States Wants To Grant Amnesty Up To 4 Million Illegal Aliens"

George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"
"READ MY LIPS"

George W. Bush Doesn't Need No Stinking Polls
NOTE: How George W. Bush Uses Polls

Jorge W. Bush Was Just Kidding - Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"

"Bush Presiona Por La 245(i)"

[Uncle Bill]

"I have seen more than one Freeper argue that a bill isn't unconstitutional until it comes before the Supreme Court for review! These Freepers argue that the President should sign ANYTHING, and that Congress should pass ANYTHING, because the word "unconstitutional" means nothing, until the Supreme Court declares somethign "unconstitutional."

When "conservatives" argue this way, it's all over.

If Bush signs Shays-Meehan, he's violating his oath of office--no matter what he "hopes" the Supreme Court may do down the road."

Bump.

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Uncle Bill]

"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."

[nsmart]

Here is why disclosure is a sham as well.. Check Here

It's not surprising that incumbents hardly ever lose. By violating constitutional restrictions on the size and scope of government they are able to dispense favors and impose punishments like Mafia Godfathers running a protection racket.

Incumbent politicians use their ability to bestow government handouts and pass harmful legislation to subtly coerce people into financing their campaigns.

As a result, many businesses, wealthy individuals, and special interests contribute preferentially to incumbents, even if they prefer a challenger's stands on the issues. For many contributors with vested interests it is vitally important to not offend the incumbent office holder lest government favors be denied, or harmful legislation passed.

Worse still, even though most of the money goes to incumbents, many contributors "hedge their bets" by giving to both major parties, even though these parties are supposed to represent polar opposites. As a result, political contributions have become a form of insurance, instead of an expression of deeply held convictions.

By contrast, challengers have no ability (and often no desire) to use government power to reward friends and punish enemies. As a result, they have less ability to raise money.

Check this out, please!

[nsmart]

Seems to me. Uncle Bill, that laws used to be tossed in TOTALITY if ANY parts were found unConstitutional. When did that change? I think it should still be thus.

[Uncle Bill]

It surely started some time ago. The continued facilitation of the process and goal of totalitarianism by the pimps of slavery only require the continued election of whores to promote their Marxist agenda and ultimate outcome. However, since help is on the way, we can take comfort in the fact that there are hardly any laws being passed, and, the laws are obeyed, while maintaining safety in the comfort and compassion of small government. Under these small government concepts, they will continue to utilize the quality and efficiency of the Department of Education, with the help of fellow travelers of justice, purity and decency. This education process by men and women of constitutional guidance and honorable past provides clear thinking and constitutional adherence to these continued principles. As long as we can keep these compassionate conservative constitutionalists, there's nothing to worry about, especially with protecting our right to bear arms. We are so lucky.

[BluesDuke]

What I don't understand is why Bush is not given a pass on CFR, but is on things like the Bush-Kennedy education plan.

I'm not entirely certain he was given quite so extensive a pass on that plan. I did see quite a number of rounds roasting him (appropriately) over it. What strikes me, aside from the point another poster just enunciated (i.e., when men and women of the right start saying Constitutionality is in the eye of the Supreme Court's beholder, it's over), is that never mind being worthy of our Founding Fathers - this government isn't even worthy of Barry Goldwater.

I will not attempt to determine whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. - Barry Goldwater.

[tacticalogic]

Near as I can tell, they're putting the law on trial. The defense attorney has already publicly stated he thinks his client is guilty as sin. Does this represent a fundamental conflict of interest? If they don't like the outcome, can Congress ask to have it declared a mistrial? Could Ashcroft be disbarred for violating professional ethics? (I can't believe I wrote that last one)

[Tauzero]

"this government isn't even worthy of Barry Goldwater."

Oh yes it is. Barry, too, "grew" in office. :(

[Askel5]

Ever get the feeling luck hasn't a thing to do with it?

(Thanks for the links.)

[BluesDuke]

Oh yes it is. Barry, too, "grew" in office. :(

Well, I was thinking of the Barry Goldwater who, among other things, denounced Eisenhower's budgets as being "dime store New Deals"...(Which causes me to wonder: Could we call Mr. Bush's budgets, allowing for inflation over four decades, $1.98 store New Deals?)

[goldstategop]

Keep shouting in his face til he has to muff his damn ears.

[Romulus]

An AG defending an unconstitutional law is hardly a novel situation.

Unlike, say, a principled resignation.

[Tauzero]

$1.98 store New Deals?

LOL!

[Donald Stone]

Commonly referred to in the private sector as "Job Security".

"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."