What if you had a crystal ball, and could see into the future, and could see that if you signed the CFR bill that you would get control of the Senate back and be able to appoint pro-life judges to the appellate and Supreme court, and that the parts of the bill you didn't like would be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
And then you looked into the crystal ball and saw that if you vetoed the bill, that you would not get control of the Senate, and that all pro-life judges you appointed would not be allowed on the courts as the Democrats continued to use a religious test for office to determine their consent.
What would you do?
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.