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]
The Washington Post reported today that President joked about signing the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed by the Senate last week.
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.
His decision to sign the bill has kicked up a firestorm of dissent in the conservative community, including a scathing editorial by The Washington Times and a letter from the American Conservative Union signed by 60 conservative leaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
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.
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".
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.
"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
Hell no. Its not the CFR, Jhoffa. ITS the fact the GW is willing to sign something he knows is unconstitutional.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.