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.

[CWOJackson]

"...until a democrat came into office to sign an even more unconstitutional bill."

And possibly after having stacked the Supreme Court first.

[Dan from Michigan]

As a person that supports gun control, I would like to know how you would answer the following: does the federal government have any constitutional authority to limit weapon ownership by citizens that have not committed felonies? If yes, how far does this authority extend and, given the second amendment, where in the constitution is this authority given? If not, should all arms (including weapons designed for combat, such as grenades and flamethrowers) be readily available?

1. Gun control is hitting my target.

2. Only non small arms which are 'destructive devices" - read Federalist 29 and 46

3. I'm not postiive, but I believe Grenades ARE legal today with a Class III, so in most states, you CAN get them.

[Fraulein]

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

...until the court ruled that law unconstitutional as well. So, tell me, where's the difference?

[Fraulein]

Sheesh. Why was your post pulled?

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

I'm not sure, but it went quick. Maybe calling EPU a rectal orifice......

No matter, he knows what I think of him.

[Texasforever]

...until the court ruled that law unconstitutional as well. So, tell me, where's the difference?

We don't have to worry about that now do we? The fact is that the democrats put this bill up as veto bait for the 2002 election to have an issue to run on and it backfired on them big time. It is better to win than to just talk loud.

[Southack]

"What legions of independents?"

The 16 million (including probably a million in Florida) voters who went for Perot in 1992/1996, for starters.

As best that I could tell, Perot voters were splitting 3 for Bush for every 2 for Gore. Disturbing that ratio by chasing more from Bush to Gore would have been disasterous for us.

Sheesh, we only won by 577 votes out of 100 million. There's absolutely no room for error in that margin. Bush was definitively as far to the Right as was humanly possible to be elected to the Presidency back in 2000 with pre-9/11-mindset voters.

Sure, we Conservatives would prefer to see him be even more Right-Wing, but surely we aren't so blind as to repeat our Goldwater mistake of 1964, whereby we went for the ideal right-wing candidate, and the nation left us behind (stuck with neo-Communist LBJ, in fact).

[Fraulein]

Here's the strange thing about cuss words: your use of the word 'a$$hole' is somehow taken to be worse that his saying that tpaine has "diarrhea of the mouth." Go figure!

[Fraulein]

Again, is it okay to intentionally violate the oath of office -- to sign a bill, like CFR, that the President knew was unconstitutional -- simply because the end justified the means? It seems to me that Bush silenced the dems only at the cost of going on public record as having supported the legislation. There are lots of voters out there who read those headlines, without understanding the so-called 'strategy' behind it, and that may actually end up doing damage to Bush in the long run. At the very least I think that should be a worry.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

Sounds like I had a run in with the FR mafia.

Every one knows they exist, but no one is willing to talk about it. Go figure. hehe

[Southack]

"Now he better hopes the house saves his ass, since I doubt the senate will."

If we have so little power that not one single Senator will filibuster this AW ban renewal, then just how are we so powerful as to knock Bush out in 2004 for signing it? Either we have power or we don't. It can't be both ways.

Moreover, why are we giving the House and Senate a "pass" on this issue, and only holding Bush's feet to the fire, especially since he has already campaigned on this issue and his position on it (whereas a lot of Congressmen haven't yet been pressed on their positions on this issue)?

[Texasforever]

Again, is it okay to intentionally violate the oath of office -- to sign a bill, like CFR, that the President knew was unconstitutional -- simply because the end justified the means?

He violated NO oath. He made a decision to let the recognized arbiter, the USSC, to exercise its power to decide the constitutional soundness of the bill. That is what we have 3 co-equal branches of government for in this republic.

[Fraulein]

Sounds like I had a run in with the FR mafia.

Sounds like you are on to something. We have now been relegated to 'the backroom.' Now why would this thread -- DeLay: "Zero chance" for (Assault Weapons Ban) renewal passing in House -- all of a sudden be moved to the backroom? Hmmm.

[Fraulein]

Then you tell me what this part of the presidential oath means, and what it would require from Bush in practice: "to uphold the constitution of the United States." I would it assume that it would mean that he shouldn't sign bills that he knows are blatantly unconstitutional. Maybe I am wrong.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

As they say, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm done with it anyway, don't want to get a reputation for being a "TROUBLE MAKER". Next thing you know, I'll be getting warnings in my mail and a horse's head in my bed. And if that doesn't work, Rasputin might just end up wearing cement shoes.

I so love the spirit of free and open debate amongst reasoning adults...... Or something.......

[Southack]

"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."

Come on Dan, you know politics better than that comment illustrates. Heck, Bush is catching fire simply from landing on an aircraft carrier, for crying out loud! One of his judges, Estrada, is catching fire simply because he hasn't anwered enough Senate questions verbosely, a far cry from being completely silent on the matter.

Moreover, Bush's advisors are being brilliant about this issue. Bush has taken a political position that keeps his campaign promise, for one thing, and for another, it places him to the left of the NRA, thus making it extraordinarily difficult for the Left to paint GWB as a far-right radical (And they would love to be able to so do).

But the real beauty of Bush's advisors stating that he would sign an AW Ban renewal bill is that it puts every Congressman on the spot.

No longer can they vote for this bill knowing that it would simply be vetoed. Nor can they avoid the vote and escape the consequences.

By making his stance public, Bush has robbed the Left of several inevitable criticisms, as well as placed our Congressmen precisely where they need to be, in the firing line regarding this bill.

Of course, the RINOs can escape even this firing line if the Democrats are still filibustering 24/7 against Estrada and Owens and/or others come September 2004 (as bills couldn't be voted upon then), but no matter, at least that would be a victory for us (if a meek and backdoor win, at that).

[Texasforever]

to uphold the constitution of the United States."

YOu left out, "to the best of my ability". He used his best judgment as to how the matter of constitutionality should be addressed and the forum to use. He chose the best forum to make the final judgment and not the temporary stopgap of the veto. There is a reason that the founders made sure a presidential veto only survived the term in office of any particular president.. You may want to read up on their views of the "imperial" presidency.

[Fraulein]

...and a horse's head in my bed.

LOL!

(BTW, I do know what you mean...)

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

;-)

hehehehe