I agree with you that all things being equal, a president should not sign something that he believes to be unconstitutional. But could not Bush say, that I regret that this Bill has provisions that I believe to be unconstitutional, but I am confident SCOTUS will promptly address those elements, and the Bill provides for fast tracking those issues? There are other provisions in the Bill, which are not unconsitutional, which I favor, and the bill has a severability clause which will allow those elements to survive even as SCOTUS sugically slices away the excesses. And the only way to get these good elements into law is for me to now sign this bill, with all its flaws. I do so ONLY BECAUSE I am CONFIDENT that those flaws will be struck down by SCOTUS, and thus will never have the pernicious effect of traducing the fundamental right of our citizens to free speech.
Or something like that. :)
This better explains my feelings. I just can't get over the specific exempting of the media in this bill. It goes right up where the sun don't shine.
To: jwalsh07; sinkspur
Actually, John, a couple of justices might find that the 60 day gag thing is just duckey.
The Constitution is like the Bible.
So many folks suffuse it with so many different meanings..."
# 550 by Torie
****************************
In this case, there isn't any misunderstanding.
Citizens will be unable to participate fully within 60 days of an election,
while the media, which is NOT unbiased, and is NOT a citizen,
will have full power to influence the election.
How many people do you know who get involved in any election two months before the vote? Most people don't pay attention until the vote is eminent. If they notice a serious flaw in one man, or a wonderful qualification in another, they will be prevented the right to support their belief.
Someone may be able to SAY that isn't a violation of our freedom, but they would be lying.