Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Bush Jokes About Signing Unconstitutional CFR Bill
comment found in Washington Post article here ^ | Sunday, March 24, 2002 | Kristinn

Posted on 03/24/2002 8:22:33 PM PST by kristinn

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-252 next last
To: kristinn
What does our president think about our rights?

Bush, in a statement issued Wednesday night, had expressed misgivings about whether parts of the bill were constitutional but said that he would sign the bill anyway.

We are in some serious trouble when our president thinks nothing of signing an unconstitutional bill.


81 posted on 03/24/2002 9:27:07 PM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: over3Owithabrain
But as long as you know I'll vote for him again next time instead of the Democrat, you're fine with that

The point was that that group composes, with the exception Keyes, what can be loosely termed the "conservative 3rd parties". Each of those parties advocate positions and would push for legislation that one or more of the other parties would deem blatantly "unconstitutional". There is no pure conservative party and there is no such thing as a "pure" conservative candidate simply because "pure" is defined by each faction of the "base".

83 posted on 03/24/2002 9:28:04 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Can we trust this is what he said from a WP story. Sounds like it was put there for us. Smells a little ratty to me.

I always consider the WP (or any mainstream media outlet for that matter) to by lying whenever they print something.

But I really don't care if Bush said this or not. All I care about is whether or not he signs the bill.

84 posted on 03/24/2002 9:28:35 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
So true, ZULU!
85 posted on 03/24/2002 9:28:38 PM PST by NordP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aria
God bless Ronald Reagan - I don't think he would have done it this way.

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life

86 posted on 03/24/2002 9:28:51 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
"Occam's Razor basically states that the simplest answer to a question is usually the correct one."......there is no good explanation except the obvious. I am furious that he would participate in the blocking of third party candidates which is what this bill will do. I am furious that he gives the media the power to sway elections right before the elections. This is unconstitutional and something needs to be done about it. If you havn't already done so, go to numbersusa.com and fax the Whitehouse with your anger. While you are at it, take a minute to mailblaster.com the House and Senate! We MUST hold them accountable!
87 posted on 03/24/2002 9:31:01 PM PST by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Why Bushy thinks we should take the law seriously after this I have no idea. I suppose I'll follow those laws that will benefit me, ignore those that are irrelevant, and break those that are inconvenient. Why the hell should we pay income taxes?
88 posted on 03/24/2002 9:31:03 PM PST by Robear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Geez... this is so typical. The liberal press, while praising CFR, is now going to try and tar and feather W with it as it relates to his 'base.' The WP and NYT are totally in favor of CFR but rather than praise Bush for signing it (which I don't think they should but if THEY had any principles THEY would) they are going to try to hang his head with it. Mara Liason has already started the talking points about how this CFR doesn't adhere to any of W's principles outlined last year. She is right of course but her motive is all wrong. The press is circling the wagons and if we, in the base, fall for it, then we are to be blamed.
89 posted on 03/24/2002 9:31:27 PM PST by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
To: kristinn CFR isn't a dealbreaker with me, bt it's pretty close.

Hell no. Its not the CFR, Jhoffa. ITS the fact the GW is willing to sign something he knows is unconstitutional.

90 posted on 03/24/2002 9:31:52 PM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I hardly think making a joke about the Constitution is worthy of someone holding our nation's highest office. Especially when the comes to putting it above your craven political needs.

Did you witness the incident? If not I think youre whistling in the dark. What makes you think he was joking about the Constitution. To me it sounded like he was poking fun at the press who didnt seem to believe he was going to do exactly what he said he was going to do several months ago and sign the bill.

If we stay home in November maybe that will provided a much needed wake-up call for the White House.

Stay home in the congressional elections and you will have only more to complain about in the coming year. What is it about Conservatives that they devour their own. If our guys cant stop certain legislation with their current numbers we stay home to show them our dissatisfaction, meaning that there will be even fewer votes for our side on the next issue. Ever think that maybe we do act like the crazy aunt in the basement.

91 posted on 03/24/2002 9:32:24 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
The Brady bill was sanctified the moment former president Reagan lobbied for it on the behalf of its namesake. That gave the Brady bill all the cover it ever needed or will ever need. You can say because of his illness he was manipulated but with Reagan as a public spokesman it was a done deal.
92 posted on 03/24/2002 9:32:44 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
You know what? If this is true and he said it, he is finished. I hope you have his ear. Because nothing short of a veto is going to help him with the conservative or republican movement, it is dead. If he said this. Now get his ear or at least go away.
93 posted on 03/24/2002 9:33:56 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ChareltonHest
'Taking away their issue's' is code for acting like Democrats.
94 posted on 03/24/2002 9:34:40 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Schakaljager
This is political reality, and Bush is playing along, and I don't have problem with that.

If I wanted someone to "play along", I would have voted for Gore.

As far as "political reality" goes, I'm seeing and hearing a lot of people who voted for Bush now saying they either won't do so, or will do so only reluctantly.

These are people who not only voted for him, but also gave money and volunteered their time. These are people who spent hours working phone banks, making yard signs, or going door-to-door for the Bush campaign.

The "political reality" is that if those folks bail, then Bush will be lucky to get the measly 37% that his father got in 1992.

95 posted on 03/24/2002 9:35:24 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

Comment #96 Removed by Moderator

To: patriciaruth
CFR is not a COMPROMISE, it is full scale Democrat/leftist. Bush in the campaign put down 6 rules on CFR and this breaks all 6 of them.... hows that a compromise???
97 posted on 03/24/2002 9:36:15 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Bush long ago warned the scumbags in Congress (at least 75% of whom do not want this bill) that he would not provide political cover for their spineless votes in favor of CFR. He warned them that he would sign virtually any CFR legislation which reached his desk. Well, Congress passed it, and he will sign it. To veto the bill at this point would destroy his credibility with the scumbags, especially the rats. He is making it crystal clear that he means what he says. He will not give Dashole and the rats the issue they are begging for, and I think a lot of them are very surprised.

At this point, the Supreme Court will have to iron out the mess. And guess what? I think when it all plays out, the rats will find that they have screwed themselves royally.

In my opinion, this will end up another masterstroke for the Bush Administration.

98 posted on 03/24/2002 9:36:53 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
That's an interesting perspective. I posted this on another thread for what it's worth, but it is my perspective.

The only thing we have is to look at past rulings and like anyone else I could be proven wrong. These points are only my opinion. This also demands a bit of parsing, since the 30 and 60 day gag would prohibit 'soft money' paying for those ads, not the actual ads.

I think if he vetoes this turkey, it will breathe new life into it, and it will be a monkey on his back. If he signs it, and lets the Supreme Court strike it down, it's a dead issue forever.

I was thinking about the provision of 'all or nothing.' When Senator Byrd challenged the Line Item Veto, his argument was that it usurped congresses power and therefore was unconstitutional. He claimed that the president couldn't just pick and choose what he wanted to agree to, and that he either take the entire bill or veto it and send it back the congress. And the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

When I read the different provision in the bill earlier, I was thinking that the 30 & 60 day prohibition on soft money ads may not be the only provision that may prove unconstitutional. The 'all or nothing' clause may be a bit sticky as well. We no longer hear anything about a line item veto, which I favored, but when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, it died. Dubya can't deem it unconstitutional, it wouldn't do any good for him to go through the exercise. He doesn't get to say, nor do we. That's the Supreme Court's call.

Some of the more dogmatic Freepers are not the only folks that are praying for a veto. The Democrats want him to veto it in the worst way. Their posturing has caught up with them this time. They have used the cover of the Republicans to hid behind for years. If the Supreme Court rules the soft money restrictions unconstitutional, and the 'all or nothing' clause, the remainder of the bill favors the Republicans. Dubya has enough on his plate, without this, and finally giving the Democrats an issue with which to beat him about the head and body.

The 'War Powers Act' is another interesting piece of legislation that all presidents, since Viet Nam, at one time or another has claimed that it is unconstitutional, but won't challenge it openly for fear that they might lose some of their power especially when it comes time to declare war.

99 posted on 03/24/2002 9:37:40 PM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: antidemocommie

Oh, I know.. that's what irks me about it.

I don't like the political implications of it as it is, but the willingness to gamble with our BOR is what really makes me angry.

Absolutely.

100 posted on 03/24/2002 9:37:44 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-252 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson