RUSH TO DUB: IT'S GUT CHECK TIME ( Stand up for free speech. Veto this bill Mr. President)

rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/15/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

[rwfromkansas]

if Bush passes it of to the SCOTUS and it gets struck down, the Dems will come back and say Bush is not defending the Constitution since he did sign it. The Dems will have something to say no matter what Bush does. VETO. I have e-mailed Karl Rove and plan on e-mailing others in the advisory capacity, as well as faxing, calling, and e-mailing Bush himself.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

I DID ALSO, AND PRAY THAT MOST FREEPERS DO THE SAME!!

[backhoe]

Silence, America!:

Silence, America!: for Silence, America!. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[LS]

The Constitution is clear, regardless of what I say. My only question is, "What does the CALENDAR say?" If this is submitted, say, next week, then Congress would still be in session after 10 days, right?

[LS]

I would agree with you that in 1996, his support for Dole was half-baked, at best. (So was mine).

But you are unfair to blame him for "failing" to get out the vote in 1998. You have to have something to work with. Besides impeachment---which certainly solidified all of us conservatives---the GOP did not develop a NATIONAL strategy to run on, and it showed.

In 2000, well, I don't know what happened. The good (though starting to fade) economy, peace (with terrorism waiting in the wings), and incumbency gave Gore more of a chance than he should have had. I can't explain Gorton or Ashcroft or Abraham's defeats. That stunned me. Again, though, I don't recall a NATIONAL theme that could have won other than "character," and at that time, the American people just didn't want to hear it.

[LS]

Matt, actually, as Rush pointed out (and I agree) Bush "painted himself into a corner" by even AGREEING that this was an issue in the PRIMARIES. He should have distinguished himself THEN from McPain by saying, "any of this stuff is an abridgment on the 1st Amendment and I stand for free speech."

[christine]

excellent point, ls! :)

[LS]

I've seen a lot of scenarios, but I'm afraid yours is flat WRONG for one major reason: the Dems never, NEVER, invoke the Constitution for ANY PURPOSE because it stands in direct opposition to everything they want.

[rustbucket]

My email to President Bush included things that Bush could say to the public:

I can't sign a bill that would throw someone in jail for criticizing a politician.

I will not sign away your rights no matter how politically safe that might be.

I took a sacred oath to protect the Constitution -- and I will not go back on my word.

The true campaign finance problem is corrupt politicians who do favors to benefit a few in return for campaign funds. The cure is simple -- throw the bums out. But you wouldn't be able to say that before an election if I signed this bill.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

AIN'T NUTHIN RUSTY ABOUT YOU!! KUDOS

[Teacup]

A Rushbo bump.

[WOSG]

There is a link to a site that mentions serval cases of spoofing and mis-representation in websites. A site that is an attempt to con people into mis-representing what they are seeing indeed is a candidate for "limit on freedom", or at least a lawsuit. Or do you think it might be humorous to buy a box labelled cereal and find a dead rat in it?

[robertpaulsen]

So he should just sign any and all un-Constitutional legislation that reaches his desk?

To do otherwise would set a horrible precedent. Imagine a future clinton-like president vetoing a narrowly passed anti-porn or pro-school-prayer bill simply because he thought it was unconstitutional. You would (rightfully) be screaming that the president cannot make that judgement, and that the majority is being denied the right to be heard instead by the Supreme Court.

Many a law has been overturned when their initial passage was unquestioned (Roe v Wade, anyone?) or upheld when thought unconstitutional (any gun control law), so it is difficult for anyone to say how the highest court will come down on an issue. Presidential second guessing on the constitutionality of a bill will only lead to no good.

But why does it have to get to the President's desk before the public becomes concerned about the constitutionality of the bill? Let's put pressure on the sponsors and those who will be voting on the contents. Moreover, a court that believes in interpreting rather than rewriting the constitution would be helpful.

Also I'd like to see the a lower court involved in these controversial bills prior to their passage, saying that the contents meet constitutional muster. Why fight for years to pass a bill that will just be overturned (other than posturing)? But I don't see this happening in my lifetime.

[DugwayDuke]

"if Bush passes it of to the SCOTUS and it gets struck down, the Dems will come back and say Bush is not defending the Constitution since he did sign it. The Dems will have something to say no matter what Bush does."

Your point that the Democrats will have something to say regardless of what Bush does is valid. However, if Bush can reduce the Democratic arguments to something that absurd, then he will have neutralized this issue while achieving the objective of stopping this bill at minimum cost. Vetoing the bill only gives the Democrats more ammunition by keeping this issue alive. Vetoing the bill does not prove its unconstitutionality. Only a USSC decision can make that point. Call in the "heavy artillery", USSC, and prove it's unconstitutional. THEN, blast the Democrats for attacking the constitution.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I like McInsane until he bashed christians, started this CFR crap and to cozyn up with the rats. It all made me think Mark of The Beast and I cats my primary vote for the President.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

The President knows that CFR is unconstitutional and that SCOTUS will make the bill its prag. why waste the veto?

Scotus has already said, "campaign contributions = free speech" They can't just turn their back on prescedent.

[spycatcher]

I think the Dems are just hoping to use it while they can in the next elections. We need a court to issue an injunction or whatever since it's a prior restraint of free speech.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I think the way The president is playing this is PR. He will look like "I'm being bipartisan" but he's really thinking "SCOTUS will crush this thing like they were The Patriots defense."

[putupon]

PLEASE CONTACT THE WH.

Done & bump

[WRhine]

Folks this could be GWB's Waterloo.

No, Bush's Waterloo will be if he pushes through the Amnesty of millions of Mexican illegal aliens, further rewarding those who don't care a wit about many of America's laws. If Bush signs this incumbency protection act it will just be another one of his liberal infractions like his signing of Ted Kennedy's education bill. You may note that the big difference between Amnesty and the latter two issues is that the latter can always be changed at any time. Immigration mistakes are permanent.