***I predict GWB Will VETO CFR***

Stardate: 0203.24 | the Wizard

[The Wizard]

IMHO GWB will veto the CFR Bill based on the fact that it doesn't include the points and principles he stands for, and because he took an oath of office that requires him to protect and defend the Constitution agaisnt all enemies both Foreign and DOMESTC, and this bill is a clear attack on the constitution.

[The Wizard]

I accept I may be wrong, but GWB is a man of principles, and those should prevent this signing.

[The Wizard]

IMHO

[Cpu]

Sorry Wiz, I wish you were right but you're not. Wishful thinking. GWB will sign it because he can raise more hard money than anybody else and he knows that the NRA gag provisions will be thrown out in court.

cpu

[Non-Sequitur]

He's already on record as saying that he will sign it. If he vetoes it now then there will be a lot of explaining to do and the press will have a field day. Sign it, let 's take it to court, and let the Supreme Court kill it once and for all.

[arielb]

What if the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional? Is it a crime to try to pass a law that may or may not be constitutional? Don't knock anyone for going against the Constitution because we don't even know if CFR is constitutional or not. We have a process for determining this-it's not FreeRepublic threads or even a really really good informed opinion. Only the SC ultimately decides

[cplboyle]

He has no principles and will sign the bill.

[conserve-it]

"He has no principles and will sign the bill."

Yes he does. He got an "A" in "Principles of Reconquista 101"

[Texican]

Wizard:
What I am afraid of is that the SC will kill parts of it, but leave the worse parts alone. I am sure that they can say that the First Amendent parts are unconstitutional but still leave the bill in force. I may be wrong, I sure hope so.

Have a good day and the very best to you and yours.

Semper Fi
Tommie

[Fishtalk]

What if the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional? Is it a crime to try to pass a law that may or may not be constitutional? Don't knock anyone for going against the Constitution because we don't even know if CFR is constitutional or not. We have a process for determining this-it's not FreeRepublic threads or even a really really good informed opinion. Only the SC ultimately decides

Hey, Ariel... "Congress shall make NO law ... abridging freedom of speech."

I didn't graduate from Harvard but I do know the meaning of the word "is" and I also know the meaning of the word "no".

"NO" means none, nada, zippo. CFR disallows paid TV ads regarding any candidate 60 days before a general election; 30 days before a primary.

Disallowing paid TV ads violates freedom of speech. THUS, it *IS* a law limiting free speech and is at odds with that little ammendment to the constitution...."Congress shall make NO law,,,"

See? I figgered this out all by myself. The President takes an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. If this same President signs CFR he is violating this oath because...."Congress shall make NO law ..."

The wise I didn't need the Supreme Court to tell me this. Nor should the President unless he didn't understand his oath or maybe doesn't know the meaning of the word "is".

In either case, he is simply too stupid to be the President.

[illbenice]

LOL, I predict you smoke to much of a certin weed...

I hope you are right, even though you are one of very few men who would have your opinion.

[Jethro Tull]

I suppose I'm like 99.9% of America.

CFR means nada to me...

[Eala]

IMHO GWB will veto the CFR Bill

I hope he does, because otherwise the democRats will have a virtually total lock on Washington State. We will never be rid of the likes of Senators (ugh) Patsy Murray and Maria Cantwell.

(Yes, I know it's really Patty, but after the way she jumped to Clinton's beck & call -- she was definitely his patsy.)

[Hank Rearden]

This president is not interested in defending the First Amendment - it might require some effort on his part.

Now we'll see about the other amendments.

[Congressman Billybob]

Read the statement the White House put out at 8:45 p.m. the night that Shays-Meehan passed the Senate. Many people on FreeRepublic are adamantly opposed to Bush's decision to sign this bill. But the decision is made.

The only remaining way to stop Shays-Meehan is in the Supreme Court. Based on current information, the case should reach the Supreme Court and be decided there, BEFORE the November election. The Bush people expect the Court to strike the law, defang the issue, and embarrass Li'l Tommy Daschle, "big time."

That's not a pleasant truth to you and most FReepers, But it IS the truth.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.

Click here for latest column.

[No_Way_A_Liberal]

I hope your prediction is right but I would bet against you. There's too much politician in the man to do the right thing without compromising.

[orbitboy]

What if the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional?

then i guess all these CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS around here were wrong

[rightwing2]

Care to bet a large sum of money on that. Let me get this straight. George W. Bush sends his people out to say he will sign the Democrat Incumbent Protection Act over and over again then after it passes the Senate on an overwhelming vote thanks to his support, conservatives tell him to veto it and he responds by saying he thinks its a good bill and that he will sign it. Despite all this, you believe that Bush will go against his rhetoric and veto the bill as the Constitution requires him to do. You believe he will step forward and save the Republican Party and save it from evisceration. Well, buddy I guess you've got a major wake up call because Bush is going to sign the McCain-Daschle-Gephart campaign finance bill and destroy the GOP's hopes for ever being a congressional majority EVER AGAIN! If he does, I and a lot of other principled conservatives will refuse to vote for him in 2004! If he does, the only axis of evil that will matter will be himself, McCain, incoming Speaker Gephardt and Tommy Boy Daschle. He would have thought that the man would destroy the Republican Party would be a Republican President? We live in a strange world don't we?

[In_My_Humble_Opinion]

I accept I may be wrong, but GWB is a man of principles, and those should prevent this signing.

And Just What Collor Is The Sky In Your World?

CFR is a done deal, until it hits the courts for revision!

[Dec31,1999]

He would have thought that the man would destroy the Republican Party would be a Republican President? We live in a strange world don't we?

After putting up the Viagra poster boy in 96, and letting Clinton slide in the impeachment scandle, I've come to believe that the Republicans truely are their own worst ememies. What a shame!

[Maceman]

If he signs this, which he will, he will be on my permanent shiite list. There is no excuse and no justification. It's as bad an assault on our Constitution as anything Clinton ever did, and I can't forgive it.

The other night I saw him speaking, and for the first time since Clinton, I hit the remote. I can't listen to talk about freedom from a man who would support gutting the First Amendment.