Replies

(1) - Anyone who seriously thinks that Shays-Meehan is constitutional needs to be asked "What part of Congress shall make no law don't you understand?"

(2) - How many unconstitutional laws can a President sign and still count on your support? It's obviously more than one and less than some indeterminate high number.

And yes, I know GWB has not signed this bill yet, but you seem to be giving him a pre-emptive pass to do so.

And you don't seem to grasp that "Congress shall make no law" OBVIOUSLY doesn't mean "NO LAW, EVER." What do you call the "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater?" That has been the law of the land for ages. What about slander? Libel? What about liquor and cigarette ads on TV? Those have been RESTRICTIONS on the First Amendment for YEARS. So again, YOUR interpretation of "restricting freedom of speech" is not the COURTS' interpretation.

Don't get me wrong: I support YOUR version, but I don't think you are at all grounded in reality. You can't go around society acting like things are PRACTICALLY constitutional when they aren't treated so; and you can't treat them as not when they are treated as they are. That's reality.

But let me ask you a hypothetical: are you not going to vote for James Monroe, one of our truly fine presidents, because despite his "small government stance" he signed off on dozens of public road, bridge-building, and other "pork barrel projects?" Will you not vote for Washington because he took the "unconstitutional step" of creating a cabinet?

Or are you a Lincoln basher, who wouldn't vote for (arguably) the greatest president in our history because he abridged free speech unconstitutionally during the War?

There is no pure standard. It's ridiculous to set barriers like that. You have to always compare. By comparison, Bush is light years ahead of WHOEVER I see on the horizon on either side of the aisle. Now, maybe someone else will appear. But for now, I don't see it.