"The President should have vetoed the bill if he felt it was not Constitutional. Simple as that."
Not quite. To you or me, it is that simple. But it is more than that. As long as we don't grant limited veto powers to the Pres. on legislation, he and others after him (assuming they give a d@mn about this country) will have to consider whether the bill despite constitutionality issues is worth vetoing.
Right now, we have two acts that has raised considerable ire among us precisely because of constitutionality issues. One is the ESA reform act and the other is the Child Safety Act. The ESA reform act is created to reform and curb the excesses of the ESA. But there have been indications that it might in and of itself expand the excesses of Article 7, which have been used by the envirowhackos as a bludgeon. The CSA presents similar problems, in that the thought crimes bill put in by that POS Conyers and approved by 30 idiots and traitor RINOs mar and otherwise good piece of legislation designed to end leniency towards child predators.
Now, legislators and the President will have to make difficult choices. Is it more important to reform a very dangerous act now despite the risk that certain aspects of it may get worse or should they wait until a better reform act or even a repealing comes down the line? Is protecting the lives and safety of children more important than the Constitution?
I am quite sure that many of us will emphatically answer towards the way that safeguards the Constitution best. But we are making tradeoffs. It can easily be argued that by the time real reform comes, it might be too late. It is not certain how long businesses and private property rights can withstand the assaults of the whackos, socialists, and Demons. Maybe it is better to get some reform and try to remove or minimize the bad parts later. Whereas we would argue that "Without the Constitution, what safeguards would there be for our children?" Others might counter that "But if children remain under threat from predators and perverts, what good would the Constitution be if it can't protect them?" These are indeed tough issues with no easy answers. Even if we come down solidly on one side or the other, we must consider the implications of our actions.
Am I ecstatic that he decided to sign CFR? Not in the least. But here are two things that does give me comfort.
1) He voiced his objections at all. Had this been the toon, he would try to expand it and craft it so that it would affect primarily conservatives while leaving the libs untouched.
2) He is trying to appoint Justices that will strike out the most offensive parts of this travesty and keep the good ones. Or maybe even the whole bill. In any case, he is doing what he possibly can to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And it is absolutely ludicrous to grant an all or nothing veto power to the Presidency when the Supreme Court gets to strike down parts of a law as unconstitutional as opposed to the entire thing. Chief Justice John Marshall struck down only the part that grants writs of prohibition and mandamus to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Act of 1789. Had he not have that option, he may have struck a good bill out entirely.
And if it turns out that the Courts can no longer rule section of acts as unconstitutional, again adopting the all or nothing approach, that is supremely stupid. A lot of good stuff would be thrown away because some a-hole who failed civics class but wants to be the big kahuna and have bootlcikers at his/her every beck and call shoved in some unconstitutional BS into an otherwise great piece of legislation.
To prevent more CFRs, it is important that we try to get this power to the Presidency and if need be, the Courts as well. If this "all or nothing" veto is in fact delinated in the Constitution, we should amend it ASAP.
But most, most important of all, all this won't amount to a hill of beans if one Demon gets through and slimes the highest office in the land. It wouldn't matter if we have LIVs or not, it will just veto everything that is a boon to us and America and approve of everything that is a bane to us and America. Although our leaders should always legislate as if the next President will be Hitlery (or at least do so as much as possible), we the constituents should work hard to ensure that never happens.
I think it is too late for that. Hasn't CFR already passed judicial review from the SCOTUS?
Thanks for the preamble on the ESA and Child Safety Acts, but each bill must be taken on its own. I don't see the trade-offs on signing the CFR. At least from a conservative point of view, the bill was clearly unconstitutional. The President took an oath to uphold the Constitution and not pass the buck to SCOTUS.
1) He voiced his objections at all. Had this been the toon, he would try to expand it and craft it so that it would affect primarily conservatives while leaving the libs untouched.
That kind of logic does not pass muster. Voicing objections and still signing the bill is a difference without a distinction. The net effect is the same, i.e., the bill became law.
2) He is trying to appoint Justices that will strike out the most offensive parts of this travesty and keep the good ones. Or maybe even the whole bill. In any case, he is doing what he possibly can to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I am sure that appointing Justices was not part of the plan. It was an act of political expediency with a view towards the 2004 reelection campaign. Hoping SCOTUS will "strike out the most offensive parts of this travesty" is not leadership or political courage.
And it is absolutely ludicrous to grant an all or nothing veto power to the Presidency when the Supreme Court gets to strike down parts of a law as unconstitutional as opposed to the entire thing.
Ludicrous? Odd choice of words. Try Constitutional. In any event, there was nothing salvagable in the CFR bill. All we need in campaign finance reform is complete disclosure.
To prevent more CFRs, it is important that we try to get this power to the Presidency and if need be, the Courts as well. If this "all or nothing" veto is in fact delinated in the Constitution, we should amend it ASAP.
The President does not have the power to veto portions of bills and pass the rest. By doing so, it would give any President the power to rewrite legislation and thwart the intent of Congress. Regardless, GWB made a big mistake in signing the CFR. He had the power to veto it and his veto would not have been overturned. The buck stops in the WH in this case, not SCOTUS.