[McGavin999]

Too bad weaked spined Bush could not veto it.

Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional instead of leaving it up to the branch our forefathers determined was empowered to do. Too bad he didn't just usurp powers that didn't belong to him.

But, I guess we'll just have to get used to a president who has actually read and understood the thing.

[caddie]

I don't get your point.

Why would W be upending the Constitution, by having vetoed this law?

I, too, think W was completely spineless in not vetoing this law, if he signed it, thinking the Supremes would "correct" it after-the-fact.

Presidents are supposed to veto crappy bills like this one, not run them through the Supremes first for approval and "correction".

Especially by the numb-nuts who are in the Supreme Court nowadays.

That would be an ass-backwards, unconstitutional way to do it.

[triggerhappy]

...overturning the Constitution?
How about upholding and protecting the Constitution?

[Huck]

Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional instead of leaving it up to the branch our forefathers determined was empowered to do.

That's not true. Many of the Founders believed the SCOTUS ought to be the final arbiter, short of revolution, but as the Virginia Resolutions show, they believed states could make Constitutional appeals to the Federal government. In fact, there are many cases of Presidents weighing the Constituionality of their actions. If your theory were true, Congress could enact a law to create a monarchy with Steve Buscemi as King, and the President would not be empowered to object on Constituional grounds. He could only challenge the law in court. I don't think that's how it works. I think parts of this law are "palpably unconstitutional", to use Madison's phrase, and the President, or the States, who are the parties to the compact, have means of redress without resort to the SCOTUS.

[ArrogantBustard]

Constitution of the United States: Article 1, Section 7. "This bill violates the constitution in the following ways:" is an "objection".

[Campion]

Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional instead of leaving it up to the branch our forefathers determined was empowered to do.

The Constitution says not a word about the Supreme Court determining whether or not something is Constitutional. That idea came about with the Marbury vs. Madison decision. That used to be taught in every HS civics class in the country; isn't it taught anymore?

The President swears an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. How does signing a blatantly unconstitutional law do that?

[ModernDayCato]

You're kidding, right? You don't actually mean that in signing this piece of crap that uses the U.S. Constitution for toilet paper, Bush was santifying his oath to 'uphold the Constitution,' do you?

That's intellectually dishonest, but certainly not surprising. I think I understand how my conservative Democrat friends felt with Clinton in office.

[itsahoot]

But, I guess we'll just have to get used to a president who has
actually read and understood the thing.

I truly hope you don't really believe, the argument you
presented here. If you do, then I truly weep for our nation.

Makes me think I might have wasted 9 years 11 months and 16
days of my life, serving my country, in defense of the Constitution.

[Republican Wildcat]

Look, the President still has my overall backing, but I cannot defend his action of signing this bill into law. It was just not the right thing to do.

Moreover, your defense is rather weak. The President can veto legislation without the Court's authority.

[RetiredArmy]

Sure, too bad you don't know what is free speach and what is not.

[madison46]

WRONG. Everybody has an oath to the Constitution. And as has been said many times before, if Congress passed a law saying soldiers could take your house, kick you out, live there, be friendly with your wife, read your mail etc...Is that consitutional until the SC says otherwise?? Abraham Linclon said we would put in the hands of a small tribunal all matters of the Constitution. I don't remember it being set up that way.

Actually, if BCRA is overturned except for the increased hard money limit, hehehehehehehehe, the Dems will have a lot of soul searching to do. hehehehehehehehehe

[Luis Gonzalez]

People in here are far too short-sighted to understand what is happening.

McCain is about to go down in flames, and will not be a factor in the 2004 Presidential election.

I like to win, and I for one do not expect President Bush to follow Marquis de Queensbury rules in a street fight.

Beat the Liberals by whatever means necessary.

[Lopeover]

I agree with you. Pres. Bush told the [congress] that he would sign a CFR bill. There is a reason why the left put this one together with one of it's provisions in question. The left wanted to use the right's virtue against them again. They wanted a veto. But this time, the President play a hand in their game.

[JavaTheHutt]

When was the last time you read the Constituion, or have you even read it at all?

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last line of defense in protection against laws violating the Constitution.

Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not rape it. Perhaps you should read the federal laws and then tell me if you think what he did today to stifle free speech isn't a criminal act.

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

[jackbill]

Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional

The President was asked, during the campaign, by George Will, "Do you believe that you should veto any legislation that YOU believe is unconstitutional"? Then Gov. Bush said "I do".

It's on tape, and was shown again on This Week last Sunday.

Oh, so that was then and this is now?

[SteamshipTime]

McGavin, you keep posting this nonsense. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court sole and exclusive authority to pass on a law's constitutionality. In fact, the Constitution doesn't even state that the Supreme Court has the authority to pass on a law's constitutionality. The Marshall Court just concluded that it did in an early case, Marbury v. Madison.

The Constitution allows the president to veto a law for any reason whatsoever. Your fantastic interpretation of the veto power renders it nugatory. What language in the document do you rely on to support such a view?

Sheesh!

[RamsNo1]

Yeh, too bad we have a supposed "education president" who couldn't educate the american public as to why he was uncomfortable with parts of this CFR bill. Bush is counting on the majority of people who really aren't interested in this bill to save his sorry butt. I have heard this argument too from many on this website and I say that is a sorry way to run a country where you are counting on the american people to be "sheeple" instead of informed citizens.

[supercat]

Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional instead of leaving it up to the branch our forefathers determined was empowered to do.

The President has the authority to veto any legislation which comes before him for any reason whatsoever. Are you suggesting that such authority only applies to bills which are constitutional, and that the President is required to sign the unconstitional ones!?