DeLay: "Zero chance" for (Assault Weapons Ban) renewal passing in House

AWBanSunset.com ^ | 5/9/03 | Stuart Roy

[E. Pluribus Unum]

House Majority leader Tom DeLay, through a spokesman, says the recently introduced AW Ban renewal bills (the Senate version, or the significantly more restrictive House version) will not pass in the House of Representatives.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

For example, Bush signed CFR knowing full well that it was unconstitutional.

It is NOT Unconstitutional for a President to sign a bill sent to him by Congress.

And how long have you been a psychic who knows what people are thinking?

[nopardons]

I really DO hate to say it, but ...I told ya so. LOL

[PatrioticAmerican]

Delay gets my vote.

[Dan from Michigan]

Over 100 million Americans voted in 2000, but 577 people made the difference. The slightest change in policies would have given the election to Gore. There was simply NO MARGIN FOR ERROR. You forgot one thing.

Centrists aren't all sucker moms. There's a group known in the strategy circles in some states as union independents. They are less likely to be Republican than the other independent vote in my state. These are your Macomb County Michigan voters. They are socially conservative, and carry a union card.

And many of them retire down in Florida, particulary Tampa and Orlando.

[The KG9 Kid]

You've got a good point, but good points don't sit well with the people in favor of renewing the ban.

[BenR2]

It's not Unconstitutional for a President to sign a bill sent to him by Congress.

//////////////////
If the bill is unConstitutional in nature (as the CFR clearly is), in what way is signing that bill "upholding" the Constitution (as Bush is sworn to do)?

Thinking clearly is not unConstitutional, either.

[Fraulein]

And how long have you been a psychic who knows what people are thinking?

Well, I certainly have no idea what you are thinking.

However, if Bush did not know that CFR was unconstitutional when he signed it, then that certainly doesn't speak very well of Bush. Everyone knows CFR is unconstitutional, except perhaps you, which is why it was immediately contested in court (by the NRA and others) with some success, and which is why it will probably end up before the Supreme Court. Nobody believes that Bush thought it was constitutional when he signed it. To believe otherwise would be to say that Bush is a moron. Is that your view? That Bush didn't know that it was unconstitutional?

The point is that some people around here think that it was okay for Bush to sign CFR because it was part of a larger conservative political strategy.

However, Bush signed an unconstitutional law. That may not in itself be unconstitutional, but it does violate the oath he took to uphold the constitution, and it certainly isn't very respectable. He has also said that he would sign AWF, which he also knows is unconstitutional. It would be nice if Bush spoke against it on principle, instead of hiding behind congress and the courts, while at the same time pandering to the left, and trying to have it both ways.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If the bill is unConstitutional in nature (as the CFR clearly is), in what way is signing that bill "upholding" the Constitution (as Bush is sworn to do)?

The President is the CEO of the E-X-E-C-U-T-I-V-E branch of government. His job is not to decide the Constitutionality of a law. That is the job of the J-U-D-C-I-A-L branch of government.

For someone who screams about the Constitution a lot, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

However, if Bush did not know that CFR was unconstitutional when he signed it, then that certainly doesn't speak very well of Bush.

The President is the CEO of the E-X-E-C-U-T-I-V-E branch of government. His job is not to decide the Constitutionality of a law. That is the job of the J-U-D-I-C-I-A-L branch of government.

For someone who screams about the Constitution a lot, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

[Southack]

"Centrists aren't all sucker moms. There's a group known in the strategy circles in some states as union independents."

Absolutely. Union independents, however, are vastly outnumbered by the legions of other independents who would have refused to vote for GWB back in 2000 if he had publicly said that he wanted to end the ban on assault weapons and that he was against Campaign Finance Reform.

In fact, McCain would have beaten GWB in the Republican primaries had Bush campaigned as I mentioned above, which is what the poster to whom I was replying had suggested.

Sure, we Conservatives would LOVE for Bush to have said such brazen anti-Left things, if he could still get elected while saying them, at least.

But back in 1996 and 2000, our country was simply not that open to Conservative ideas. This is something that is changing, however.

Yet it would be foolish to apply today's new standards to the pre-9/11 minds of voters back in November of 2000. While GWB could possibly get away with taking such right-wing stances as mentioned above in an election today (certainly the public supported arming pilots, for instance), that simply wasn't the case prior to 9/11/2001.

[BenR2]

The President is the CEO of the E-X-E-C-U-T-I-V-E branch of government. His job is not to decide the Constitutionality of a law. That is the job of the J-U-D-C-I-A-L branch of government.

For someone who screams about the Constitution a lot, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

//////////////
The notion that only someone in a black robe behind a court bench can read and compare and use logic -- let alone be concerned lest the Constitution be undermined -- is dopey.

[BenR2]

For someone who screams about the Constitution a lot, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

/////////////
I don't recall screaming. However, better to scream than to remain silent while it is trampled underfoot, no?

[Fraulein]

Then you tell me what this part of the presidential oath means, and what it would require from Bush: "to uphold the constitution of the United States."

[Dan from Michigan]

Union independents, however, are vastly outnumbered by the legions of other independents who would have refused to vote for GWB back in 2000 if he had publicly said that he wanted to end the ban on assault weapons and that he was against Campaign Finance Reform.

1. On the AW ban - Where would it cost him? California? Jersey? New York? Connecticutt? Illinois? He lost those anyway. What legions of independents? From my maps, he already lost the major anti-gun areas.(and in my state, Gore took the union vote big because of Bush's dad and the Japanese.)

2. Bush said he was against McCain/Feingold. He did say he supported Campaign finance reform, but not that piece.

[Dan from Michigan]

1. You and Bush are ASSuming that DeLay will kill the bill in the house. That's the gameplan. It will PROBABLY happen, but we don't know that. If another Columbine happens, look out. DeLay couldn't keep that from a vote, although he and Dingell saved gunowners bigtime by poison pilling it. There are a lot of new members and congressman, and they haven't had a really close gun bill. This is tougher than the gun lawsuits bill.

2. Bush and his advisors are being dumb on this. The SMART thing for him to do is to shut the hell up about it and not say a damn thing. If he didn't say anything, we wouldn't have a firestorm on it at all. By casting doubts, it hurts him in several swing states, and paints him in a corner. If the AW ban is re-signed, he probably won't win in 2004.

3. Bush is viewed already as a pro-gunner. He won't win extra votes on this, and might lose CENTRIST voters in many states over this, and will certainly lose more than he will gain outside of California, New York Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticutt. All heavily dem states. Contrast that with closer progun states like Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

4. Bush is NOT playing to win this. He's playing "NOT TO LOSE". An old saying is "dance with the one that brung ya". He passed the buck on CFR and it bit him in the ass hurting him with his base. Enron put him in that position and the house passed the buck back to him. Will that happen again with the AW? That's not counting if it goes on a rider to another bill. That's how they got Lautenberg through. If he played to win, he wouldn't say anything and quietly let this die. Or give a non answer and say "The AW ban will sunset. We'll see what congress proposed on this. I won't make a decision until I see what the contents of the bill is". That's fair since any new AW ban would be a new bill.

5. So right now, Bush looks bad to his base since he(McClellan) opened his trap and a can of worms. No positive came from that for him. None. Now he better hopes the house saves his ass, since I doubt the senate will.

[CWOJackson]

You're going to be very popular in a few moments.

[CWOJackson]

You're going to be very popular in a few moments.

[Texasforever]

The point is that some people around here think that it was okay for Bush to sign CFR because it was part of a larger conservative political strategy.

Because once the court rules it unconstitutional it is dead. The only thing Bush would have accomplished with a veto is postponing it until a democrat came into office to sign an even more unconstitutional bill.