I didn't say CFR was good for the nation I said it was good for the Republican Party. I didn't say CFR was a violation of the First Amendment, or in the (best) interest of the people. I said the people wanted CFR. Your's is an often effective, but dishonest debating technique. You accuse me of saying something I didn't, and then condemning me for your distortions? Better luck next time.
Do you seriously suggest that vetoing CFR would have made Bush either "an absolute ruler" or a "tyrant?"
I think my sentence "Leaders who do not heed the will of the people are called dictators," is perfectly understandable and I feel no desire to break it down so you can nitpick at it.
Do you seriously suggest that vetoing CFR would have made Bush either "an absolute ruler" or a "tyrant?"
Dubya doesn't have to obey the will of the people but they will throw him out and elect someone who will obey the people. The result is the same. Clinton had to sign welfare reform, Dubya had to sign CFR. To be a good steward of the people Dubya should VETO legislation that the people do not want. The Republicans have strengthened their majority by passing what the people want. There is no need to VETO it.
I understand your concerns with the 1st Amendment. Our Founding Fathers did not trust the Constitution to protect freedom. That is why they made it amendable. The Constitution is no guarantee against a corrupt people. The key to America's continued success lies in the people of the USA and the freedoms we cherish. The people don't always get it right the first time but eventually they get it right. There is nothing wrong with the people choosing to do the wrong thing as long as the retain the right to reverse it when they wise up. That may not be the best way to do things but it is the way we do things.
The CFR restrictions did not stop anyone from expressing their opinions through 527s. There were restrictions on individual contributions to a candidate before CFR of $1000. CFR expanded that to $2000. My point is on a scale of 1-10 1 being extremely destructive and 10 being extremely beneficial CFR is 5. It neither hurts nor helps. It is unconstitutional in the same manner that previous campaign contribution restriction violate the 1st Amendment. It is unconstitutional in the same manner that gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment and abortion violates the unalienable right to life proclaimed in the Declaration. And yet they are the law. They are reality.
Show me a strict constitutionalist and I will show you a man unable to get elected above Congressman. Who cares what they think? They ain't gonna get to do nothin about it.