Skip to comments.
Executive Privilege
National Review Online ^
| March 21, 2002
| Rich Lowry
Posted on 03/21/2002 2:05:52 PM PST by DaveCooper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Im still in a very rotten mood over what is happening. Mere words cannot express the depths of my disappointment and my feelings of betrayal.
To: OWK,AKBear,Tex-oma
bump
To: DaveCooper
As far as we know, Bush hasnt asked the Justice Department about it or his own White House Counsel. Perhaps Bush asked the 5 Republican supreme court justices what they think.
If I were Bush that is who I would ask, and if the answer was good, I wouldn't get very upset about it at all.
It may surprise you to learn that the DOJ and the Attorney General can't do anything about CFR. Those 5 Supremes are another matter.
This bill makes it a very tough world on Democrats. If they talked to the nuts and bolts people in the Democratic party instead of Katie Couric they would know how much this Bill hurts Democrats.
Twenty five years ago when Democrats limited hard money to $1,000 a doner they were sure that it would destory Republican fund raising. But it didn't. The Republicans way out raised them. Democrats had to invent the soft money loophole to get around their own law.
They will find a new loophole here. Lawyers write the laws. Lawyers get paid for finding loopholes. That is why they always leave loopholes.
To: DaveCooper
I agree Dave. I love this column. Thanks for posting.
To: DaveCooper
Although I do not agree with the CFR bill, whose responsibility is it to determine the constitutionality of a bill? The executive or judicial branch? Can a president legitimately veto a bill because it MAY prove to be unconstitutional?
To: my4kidsdad
Read the NR piece referenced in this article. The upshot is that members of each branch swears to protect the Constitution, and therefore should act on what they believe to be constitutional. The courts, of course, get the final say, but the point is that they shouldn't be the only ones considering whether a bill is constitutional.
6
posted on
03/21/2002 2:27:01 PM PST
by
Polonius
To: my4kidsdad
He can. However, at the same time, I think Bush stikes me as the type who wants to kill this thing PERMANENTLY. I think there have been quiet, behind the scenes discussions, and this thing is KNOWN to be DOA at SCOTUS.
To tell you the truth, if we can kill it permanently, it beats having to fight year after year after year, because a veto would leave us dealing potentially with President Hillary signing the bill, then having someone left-wing hacks as Solicitor General and Attorney General.
7
posted on
03/21/2002 2:27:18 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
I know you know this already, but for me, it isn't even about the appalling loss of freedoms, well it is but..., more, it's about trust. Character matters. Honesty matters. Loyalty matters.
To: Polonius
Maybe Bush has, as a previous post suggested, discussed the issue with one or several members of the SCOTUS and is deferring to them to crush the bill, thus not tarnishing his record in the eyes of the voters. CFR APPEARS to be unconstitutional, but we'll see what happens....kinda scary that Starr is in charge.
To: Common Tator
Won't the Solicitor General have a problem arguing that CFR is unconstitutional if the President signed it?
10
posted on
03/21/2002 2:35:23 PM PST
by
Ken H
To: RAT Patrol
Yeah, but so does common sense.
What good is it if we walk right into ambushes the way Gingrich did? Sometimes, the key to winning is to withdraw, and conserve the capital for a more important battle, or to possibly win PERMANENTLY.
Remember Brer Rabbit and the tar baby? The more he fought, the more he got trapped. They just threw this into a brier patch, and frankly, all that will survive are the disclosure elements and the higher hard money limits.
The rest is toast. Now, if you have a choice between a 99% chance of killing this thing PERMANENTLY, or fighting this battle year in and year out, what would you take?
I don't like fighting the same battle over and over. Let's stake this abomination PERMANENTLY.
11
posted on
03/21/2002 2:38:27 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: Ken H; Congressman Billybob
The President said there were constitutional issues with it. The Solicitor General and Attorney General have to defend the bill, but there's nothing saying they have to defend all of the parts equally well.
12
posted on
03/21/2002 2:39:39 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
and this thing is KNOWN to be DOA at SCOTUS.
Do you think the entire bill is DOA? I'm not sure that is the case as I think only parts will be found to be unconstitutional if any and the remaining sections will stand. Isn't that the way it will be judge? From another article.....
13
posted on
03/21/2002 2:40:27 PM PST
by
deport
To: Common Tator
If Bush asked any Supreme Court justice what he or she thought about CFR, that justice would have to recuse himself or herself from any Supreme Court action dealing with the bill. That's Legal Ethics 101, friend.
14
posted on
03/21/2002 2:41:59 PM PST
by
mdwakeup
To: DaveCooper
PUUUUHHHH Leeeez! Let him sign this enormously stupid bill and move on to a few events in the world that mean something. Either this bill works or it doesn't. Bush got 85% of his donations from schmucks like us in $2000 increments. Thats the big secret about his campaign. The bill only prohibits ads in the last 60 days paid for by soft money. Who cares!!! WHat will this bill mean to you and me? NADA!!! Jerks like Limbaugh are going to get a democrat put in the Whitehouse like they did in 92 and 96 if we all don't calm down and focus on a few world events going on right now that matter! The only thing that can hurt Bush is us and we're doing a fine job!
15
posted on
03/21/2002 2:42:24 PM PST
by
Batman94
To: deport
That is the way it will be. But with all the lawsuits from this (someone goes after the soft money ban, then there is the coordination provisions, in addition to the ad ban), I think that what will make it will be disclosure and hard money. The rest will get hammered.
I'm not a lawyer, but Buckley v. Valeo only allowed limits, not bans.
16
posted on
03/21/2002 2:44:33 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: *CFR list;*Silence, America!
To: Common Tator
Lawyers get paid for finding loopholes.And politicians get paid by selling loopholes.
18
posted on
03/21/2002 2:58:17 PM PST
by
RJayneJ
To: my4kidsdad
Can a president legitimately veto a bill because it MAY prove to be unconstitutional? He can veto it because the pattern of the print reminds him of a particular plot of grass that he doesn't like.
19
posted on
03/21/2002 3:04:23 PM PST
by
lepton
To: RJayneJ
Lawyers get paid for finding loopholes. And politicians get paid by selling loopholes. Not all lawyers are politicians, but almost all politicians are lawyers. And lawyers that are not politicians contribute huge amounts of money to those that are.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson