Posted on 02/26/2002 5:44:49 AM PST by LavaDog
Here's another snapshot of Washington working to reassure the American people that politics is a clean, above-board business: Attorney General John Ashcroft will soon be defending a law that he clearly thinks is unconstitutional.
The calculation of the White House is that it is easier to sign Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold than to veto it, or even — amazingly enough — to ask the Senate to change the constitutionally dubious parts.
The idea is that the courts can be counted on to throw out the worst parts of the bill, while the Bush machine merrily vacuums up even more hard money for 2004 than it did for 2000 (feel reassured about the idealism of Washington politics yet?).
The wrinkle in this admittedly clever tack is that President Bush doesn't simply sign the bill and passively watch the courts excise the unconstitutional bits for him. By signing the bill, he puts the weight of his administration behind the law.
So, the courts may eventually throw parts of it out, but it will be the Bush administration urging it not to.
In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out.
Hey, no one said "cleaning up Washington" would be pretty.
If it were just White House operatives tainting themselves by this calculation, that would be one thing. But Attorney General Ashcroft, among others, will have to twist himself into knots to serve the White House calculation.
Even supporters of campaign-finance reform admit portions of the legislation are probably unconstitutional. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Ashcroft thinks it's unconstitutional as well, at least judging by his statements when he served in the Senate.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in an issues survey during Ashcroft's 2000 reelection campaign, characterized the senator's position as being that McCain-Feingold is "unconstitutional."
A quick Nexis search pulls up a bunch of Ashcroft statements during the 1997 debate criticizing the bill for limiting political expression. Ashcroft says:
— that "the answer is not broad, new campaign-finance legislation that threatens core political speech."
— that "there is nothing closer to the heart of liberty itself. There's nothing closer to the core of what it means to be free people than to have free, uninhibited, unbridled capacity in the culture and among its citizens to speak politically."
— that the bill is a "shocking outrage to the conscience of freedom-loving Americans."
The administration will soon be defending a version of this bill in court.
What most administrations do, when confronted with a bill of dubious constitutionality, is ask the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to give an opinion of it. That way, an administration can avoid getting itself in the position of defending unconstitutional laws.
One would think, then, that at the very least the Bush administration would ask the Justice Department about the constitutionality of Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold.
Unless it just doesn't care to know.
On the other hand, if Bush signs a bill he knows to be unconstitutional then he is willfully violating his oath of office and he lowers himself to the same DC political scum that's been ruining this country for so long. If he is unwilling to expend some political capital to do the right thing and instead waits for the courts to clean up the mess, then he is taking the coward's way out.
What I don't understand is why Bush is not given a pass on CFR, but is on things like the Bush-Kennedy education plan.
When "conservatives" argue this way, it's all over.
If Bush signs Shays-Meehan, he's violating his oath of office--no matter what he "hopes" the Supreme Court may do down the road.
Is this so hard?
Unfortunately the Tenth Amendment has been essentially gutted by the courts with Republican acquiesence. Only the minor parties such as Libertarian or Constitution seem to pay it any reverence.
The first amendment however, is one which I had hoped up until now that the GOP would be willing to support.
Well, he doesn't have to argue very hard. For example, Bush could instruct Ashcroft to present an absurd or incompetent argument to the Supreme Court, although for political reasons he shouldn't make it too obvious.
Too bad he's a wimp and a rotten president to conservatives and constitutionalists. He loves government and had to buy a political philosophy when he ran for Pres.
His motto seems to be "can't we all just get along".
I'm nearly sure he'll voilate his oath of office and sign this POS. I honestly hope he proves me wrong.
Would it not be something if GW did this, and then the DEMS would state what he did (by signing) was unconstitutional! I've heard of stranger things.
Rich Lowry does make a good point, however. GW's signature "puts the weight of his administration behind the law", even though it is not what GW intends. It's a real dilemma when presented with a bill that may be unconstitutional.
Here's the proper campaign reform:
Individuals can donate any amount but the recipient must issue immediate disclosure via the internet (say within 3 to 5 days of receipt or face the punishment of those funds being directly taken by a new watchdog agency whose sole pupose would be to scoom up those unreported funds and apply them to the national debt);
Corporations, unions or any organizations are NOT citizens and don't have the same rights as citizens, therefore they can't contribute directly to candidates--but they can spend whatever they deem proper on TV, radio or mail urging their customers, members or whatever to vote for and/or send money to XXXX candidate--but they must accurately identify ALL contributors to whatever front organization they set up or face jail-type prosecution for fraud.
Example: "Citizens for Fighting Fraud in Government" or some such would have to publically include in/on the ads etc. that they are supported by, say, Enron, George Soros, Global Crossing...
"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.