Replies

"A Homeland Security bill did reach Bush's desk, without the Section 245(i)"

Thank You for proving my point

" but what should the President do if the AWB extension does reach his desk?"

Either veto it or Pocket Veto it. But I will continue to be amused over all the "If Bush Signs this... That's it, I'll vote for a guaranteed loser" crowd.

You must admit that the chances of the AWB renewal getting the support of the majority in both the house and the senate and then making it out of Conference when we control what will be debated and voted on the floor of both houses, has little chance of reaching the POTUS desk?

Jim Robinson commented on this issue on another thread awhile back...and I'm going to post his comments here. He says is WAY better than I could.

I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I live and breath for restoring them and our Liberty and for dumping the socialist liberal RATs out of their controlling positions in government. That's why I am passionately opposed to allowing any Democrat from gaining or holding office.

I see the Democrats and their socialist platforms as the enemy of freedom, enemy of Liberty and enemy of the Constitution (not too mention just flatout corrupt and their party platform, ie, socialism, slave taxism, gun control, government sanctioned and enforced homosexualism and abortion, etc., as purely evil).

I see dumping the RATS and not allowing them into government in controlling numbers as the first step (note: "first step") in restoring constitutional government. Those who are bent on dumping the Republicans are simply going to reinstall Democrats in their place and forestall any chance of constitutional restoration. What good can that possibly bring?

Here's the roadmap:

First step: Dump the RATs.
Elect Republicans.
Build a controlling supermajority.
Appoint and confirm conservative judges.
Repeat at all levels of government.
As majorities build: dump the least conservative of the Republicans and replace with with more conservative candidates.
One by one, build cases against existing unconstitutional law and or prior Supreme Court decisions and bring to the newly conservative courts to strike down or reverse.
Lobby the conservative congress to repeal existing unconstitutional laws.
Lobby the congress to begin dismantling the socialist welfare state and the police state.
Build cases for repealing all unconstitutional gun control laws and lobby congress and or the Supreme Court to get it done.
Repeat for each area where federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
Repeat above at state and local levels.
Build a case for amendments to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the income tax, the IRS, FICA, the SSA, medicare, etc.
Build a case for an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and bring to congress and to the people.
Ensure that the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments are fully restored and enforced.
Restore state and local government control (ie, the people) over crime, social, welfare, education and environmental issues.
Enjoy and diligently defend the Liberty newly restored and secured for ourselves and our posterity.

Repeat as necessary.

1,175 posted on 04/17/2003 3:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

Thank You for proving my point

No. Your point was that you noticed some similarity between the current situation and the 245(i) debates. Even if we stipulate that we don't know where the President stands on an AWB extension, that wasn't the case with Section 245(i). Bush supported the Amnesty extension.
Your point is something other than proven. Sort of like your point about John Q. Public and the mainstream media.

Either veto it or Pocket Veto it.

What is your opinion of the political ramifications of either, with regard to 2004?

Either veto it or Pocket Veto it. But I will continue to be amused over all the "If Bush Signs this... That's it, I'll vote for a guaranteed loser" crowd.

When Bush 41 signed the tax increase, I voted for a guaranteed loser: Bush 41.
It wasn't amusing, but I blame no one but him for losing a key part of his constituency.

I would hope so, but I think it's an open question.
The more Republicans there are that act like 2A issues are something to be feared, the more likely it is that the RINOs will waiver, and the more likely it is that the President will find the extension on his desk.
Projecting weakness is a bad strategy.