Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th
As long as you agree with those principles.
I've been trolling DU. It's empty. There's a link to this thread. They're all here.
Where did you think all the hate Bush posts came from? Yep. Followers of Coward Dean the homo queen. Suprised?
I'm not afraid of the fight, I just am unable to stay on this thread long enough to have it right now. Those dishing sound no better to me that those at the Dem debate last night, cherry picking their issues while denying the accomplishments of this President.
|
I like the way you think.
Perhaps Dubya should have vetoed the bill, but do you really think we needed an internal fight in the middle of the war on terrorism? He had every right to expect that the Justices would actually do their job instead of merely collecting a paycheck on the backs of the people they are so willing to betray.
Yes they can regulate the manner of holding elections. But they can't do so in such a way that it abriges the freedom of speach, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. I think the law does all of those things.
The first amendment, being an amendment, overules the powers of Congress granted in the main body of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights died this month, after an extended illness. First the nine in black declined to even rule on a law which grossly infringed upon a fundamental right protected therein, and now they rule in direct opposition to another provision.
This is what I'm proposing to do. Looking at the travesty of a law, it appears that print ad won't work, nor internet (yet), so we'll have to come up with a TV or Radio ad (much cheaper) on a station that reaches 50,000 people who is also willing to run the ad.
Let's do this thing. Let them come and arrest us. Someone needs to draw a line and tell Congress, the President, and the SCOTUS, "This far and no further."
And where's the outrage? When is the massive protest!? Why aren't we gathering in Phoenix with a vat of tar and sacks of feathers and a rail to deal appropriately with RINO McCain? No, instead we've got FReepers even on here defending this crap. Defending it!!? Dammit!!
You're not allowed to point that out. Somehow seven justices on the Supreme Court nominated by Republican Presidents aren't enough.
What color is the sky in your world? He [President Bush] has signed laws which have trampled every single one of the first ten Amendments save number III.
I guess we can be thankful that he hasn't signed a law allowing the quartering of troops in private homes...yet.
You want a list of names? Why? They haven't been approved by the White House and the RNC, so I doubt you would have heard of them anyway. But fine, a short list, Zell Miller
For Immediate Release
Contact: Joan Kirchner
202-224-3643March 19, 2001
Statement by Senator Zell Miller on Campaign Finance Reform
Washington – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) issued the following statement today as the Senate opened its debate on campaign finance reform:
"This is our best chance yet to repair a badly broken system. We must not let the opportunity pass us by.
"Senators McCain and Feingold have worked on this issue since 1995, and it is on the nation's front burner today thanks to their persistence. They are the quarterbacks on this legislation and I will follow their call in this debate. I will vote for the amendments they favor and I will vote against the amendments they oppose."
-30
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.
When it comes to priority over a fight over the first admendment and the WOT, I'll pick the first admendment every time. Need to get more Republican Senators in office. However I fear that this ruling gives the Demoncrats the edge, therefore we will lose Bush, several senators, and the WOT.
How do you know, Sabertooth? We're dealing with an unknown. I do respect your opinion. You're a pretty level headed person.
I wonder, though. The Democrats are pretty dumb. It's easy for Bush to pull the wool over their eyes. This could be a blessing for us in the future.
Granted, the 60 day thing sucks. No doubt. But the American people, those who don't pay close attention, are sick and tired of the political hate commercials on TV before an election. They really wanted this. The "people" really did support it.
But neither will advocacy groups, like the NRA or the Brady Bunch for that matter and incumbents are still free to send out "Constituent letters", on your nickel. The incumbent re-election rate is already obcenely high, it will get higher, and they will listen less and less to anyone.
VRWC_minion: As long as you agree with those principles.
God save us from Presidents who "act on principles." I have no doubt that Bill Clinton 'acted on principles,' and look what it got us. Give me instead "truth in advertising:" the President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution (NOT his personal "principles"), and I expect him to do just that, or resign. IMHO, he can act on his "principles" when he returns to private life - while he's working for the people of the United States, he needs to defend the "supreme law of the land"...
;>)
Look at Amendment I, and tell me what that means. Congreff did pass this law, did they not? Amendments trump the original language if there is a conflict.
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.