So, is it your premise that all laws are unconstitutional if you say so ? No actually it is my premise that the constitutionality is determined by examining the plain meanings of the words. If we cannot agree what those words mean than no constitutional provision has any meaning whatsoever. Based on the word "abridge" these provisions are objectively in violation of the meaning. That sure as hell beats defining constitutionality by the current whims of the supreme court.
As far as GW I will paraphrase "Despite my concerns about the constitutionality about some of the provisions of this law I am signing it because I think it is a good thing"
That is a politicians admission if there ever was one however in this case I am applying interpretation which is much more justified when deciphering political speak than it is in determining the meaning of the first amendment.
No actually it is my premise that the constitutionality is determined by examining the plain meanings of the wordsWhere does it say Exxon has the same constitutional right to free speech as I do ? Where is the constitutional amendment that extends our bill of rights to a state created/protected entity ?
I agree that we take the menaing of the words at face value but there application are not always so clear. If they were the founding fathers would not have created a SC to intepret them.
I am applying interpretation which is much more justified when deciphering political speak than it is in determining the meaning of the first amendment.
You are again using the "I said so" form of support for your arguments. If you want to hang Bush with his own words, shouldn't you be requird to give him the benefit of the doubt absent anything else ?
This was an interesting thread don't you think?
Statement by the President
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President
Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.
The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
###
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html The George W. Bush Lie
ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:
GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
GOV. BUSH: I do.
WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/681719/posts?page=14#14