Skip to comments.
Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."
Office of the Press Secretary ^
| March 20, 2002
| George W. Bush
Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 581 next last
To: CedarDave
Does this rise to a level where impeachment is warranted?? Some of you people have lost your minds.
To: erk
Gee, the flood of faxes, e-mails, and phone calls didn't work. I think he made this announcement just to stem the tide. The WH staff was probably in danger of getting smothered.
Maybe he'll be swayed by massive defections from the GOP.
To: kayak
Everyone who would prefer that Algore were President right now, please raise your handI would poop in my cap and put it back on my head before I would wish for Algore!!
To: VRWC_minion
Maybe I am nuts, but when Bush signs this won't he be signing the whole bill? What's this stuff about not enforcing the unconstitutional parts? PLEASE ADVISE!
124
posted on
03/20/2002 5:20:53 PM PST
by
RamsNo1
To: VAwireguy
Well George...you just blew it for the STUPID party! So glad I voted for Pat Buchanan. I'm betting some of you on here probably wish that you did also! Buchanan says what he thinks, at least. But most of what he says is idiotic. I wouldn't vote for him on a dare.
I wish I had somebody better than Bush, Buchanan and the other losers to vote for.
Maybe next time.
125
posted on
03/20/2002 5:20:54 PM PST
by
dead
To: dittomom
The President of the United States has just caved on Hays-Meehan, and has violated his oath of office to "preserve and protect the Constitution." That frees me to say what he should have done. He should have gotten an Opinion from the Attorney General that the bill was unconstitutional. Then he should have signed the bill into law, but also instructed the Solicitor General to go into court that day, seeking an injuction against ANY use of or application of that law, pending Supreme Court review.
(The President directs the position taken by the Solicitor General, At least five times the SG has been directed not to defend a federal law, but to attack it instead, because the President believed it to be unconstitutional.)
Never, however, has any President both signed a law and directed the Solicitor General to attack it in court on the same day. This could have resulted in a Supreme Court decision striking the law BEFORE the November Election, which would have defanged the Democrats and vindicated the (mostly) Republicans who condemned this bill.
My colleagues and I will now seek to have this entire law declared unconstitutional. We will do that not for the sake of the dishonest President, but on behalf of the Constitution that is under attack.
I SAID THIS BEFORE, AND REPEAT IT NOW. IF WE DO NOT GET THIS LAW DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I WILL RESIGN FROM THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NEVER ENTER ITS BUILDING AGAIN.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "The Truman Factor."
To: goodnesswins
Why should they not have the right to send any money (say, allowance money, etc).
To: Recovering_Democrat
This is terrible. Bush is killing the golden goose. I have been an unabashed supporter and my wife and I maxed out on donations to him last time. If he signs this, he's going to have to get that money somewhere else.
He gave his word twice, once in the campaign and once when he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
To: dittomom
At least he threw us a teeny bone with the "some legitimate constitutional questions" part of the statement.Yes, a teeny bone. I hope we don't all choke on this.
To: firebrand
Maybe he'll be swayed by massive defections from the GOP. We can hope. Of course that's assuming ppl WILL defect.
ANYONE have the breakdown of the votes in the senate and house on this bill? Where can they be seen?
To: erk
Gee, how many times have I seen this scenerio and George W. Bush? Some "the-sky-is-falling" situation where "W" makes "the big stupid" mistake. And his base supporters are PO'd! And that's that! "See! He is stupid!"
Only to see him come up with some angle that gets him to where "we" want him to be. And where he said he was going in the first place.
Will this be his first major "political failure" since he entered politics? The silver bullet that does him in? Will this be the end of "W". The grand finale? Closing of the curtain? The final act?
Don't bet on it. Or, don't bet against him. If the past is any indicator of the future he will come out on top.
But if he signs this. Straight up. Even his James Carville types like me are going to be upset.
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
AMERICAN'S HAVE BEEN BETRAYED TODAY!
To: dead
Maybe next time. ROFL. Yeah - Elizabeth Dole's stock is rising, maybe she'll run. There's a real conservative for you.
To: erk
What is laughable about this is incumbent politicians talking about how hard the current campaign finance system is on challengers to incumbents. The last thing incumbents want is a viable challenger.
To: firebrand
Maybe he'll be swayed by massive defections from the GOP. Keep us informed of the "massive defections."
If they don't happen within the next two weeks, they won't happen.
(PSST: They won't happen.)
To: erk
This is bad, but not unexpected, news.
Richard F.
136
posted on
03/20/2002 5:24:23 PM PST
by
rdf
To: davidosborne
I'm beginning to think that's about the only thing that *will* be able to stop this rampant corruption of freedom.
To: sinkspur
Why should you be allowed to send money if you can't vote?I missed this, what article or amendment to the constitution covers this notion?
My father enlisted at 17 for cripes sake. He could fight but not vote nor send campaign contributions? Come on man.
To: Congressman Billybob
Never, however, has any President both signed a law and directed the Solicitor General to attack it in court on the same day. This could have resulted in a Supreme Court decision striking the law BEFORE the November Election, which would have defanged the Democrats and vindicated the (mostly) Republicans who condemned this bill Actually this bill goes into effect 1 day after the November 2002 election doesn't it?
139
posted on
03/20/2002 5:25:59 PM PST
by
Dane
To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I've noticed that no one has tried to answer your question.
Interesting. Your concerns over contracting verbal diahrrea do not seem to be widespread.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 581 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson