I request that some of the "energy" on this thread also be directed to telling our military "Thanks".
Please take a moment and Thank a Service Man or Woman.
Just Click on the logo to send an e-mail.
Posted on 03/25/2002 11:16:37 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Mon Mar 25,10:19 AM ET
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Sunday he would sign landmark campaign finance reform legislation with only a slight hesitation, reflecting his ongoing concerns about the measure.
The legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics won final congressional approval last week, and Bush has pledged to sign it soon.
The bill would ban unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties, limit such donations to state and local parties and restrict broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections.
Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life resulted in the president's impeachment in 1998, is to lead a legal challenge that will seek to knock down most of the measure as unconstitutional.
Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.
"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.
Bush said that nonetheless the "bill is a better bill than the current system," but that some parts of it might not stand up to a court challenge.
Unless you don't know that different duties of this government fall to different entities of this government.
Or you don't like those provisions of the Constitution and don't agree with THEM either?
Well said Howlin and soooooooooooo true!
Pat Buchanan didn't get elected. George W. Bush did and he's about 85% conservative-- and he needed the electoral college to get to the WH.
I would refer you to michigander's Post #45 for some pretty good info to that effect. No less an authority than George Washington used his own judgment to decide the Constitutionality of a bill.
Why not just get it over with. Unless you, too, just want the issue and want to hear about CFR for the rest of your natural life.
Ya know, I thought that too about two weeks ago.
However, the terrorists have no ability of actually CHANGING our Bill of RIGHTS.
All things considered I think the problem we're seeing developing at home is far more devastating to our form of self government.
I'm serious.
Now, list for me ALL the laws that have not been enacted because a president DECIDED ON HIS OWN that they were unconstitutional.
Howlin, just a little while ago, I posted on a different thread that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide what laws are and are not constitutional. That's the way the government of our constitutional republic is set up to work.
But it's a lot more fun to hyperventilate, isn't it?
What conservative idea is being enacted with CFR?
The obvious answer is that the Founders intended for a defense of the Constitution by using depth. All three branches have a shot at eliminating unconstitutional legislation, not just the courts.
<Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.
"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.>
So apparently Bush is more interested in Big Brother knowing what we are saying about him than our free speech?
Not fun, I would argue that it is more like an addiction for some on FR.
What is that supposed to prove? Post #45 provided an example of just that, by one of the Founding Fathers. Who better would know what the writers of the Constitution intended than a contemporary?
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.