Posted on 03/24/2002 8:22:33 PM PST by kristinn
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Washington Post reported today that President joked about signing the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed by the Senate last week.
Bush, in a statement issued Wednesday night, had expressed misgivings about whether parts of the bill were constitutional but said that he would sign the bill anyway.
His decision to sign the bill has kicked up a firestorm of dissent in the conservative community, including a scathing editorial by The Washington Times and a letter from the American Conservative Union signed by 60 conservative leaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He took an oath on this.
To uphold the Constitution and "political heat" was mentioned nowhere in it.
Haven't read all the way down this thread, but I think it is wrong for President Bush to sign this, thinking the SC will overturn it. If in fact he is doing so to take the issue away from the demos, this path actually hands it back to them. If the court does over turn CFR, then the demos have ammo to use against the "bias, conservative" court and will block any conservative nominee President Bush brings forward. He is between a rock and a hard spot, and the single best thing he can to is pick the bill up and tear it in two.
These are people who not only voted for him, but also gave money and volunteered their time. These are people who spent hours working phone banks, making yard signs, or going door-to-door for the Bush campaign.
The "political reality" is that if those folks bail, then Bush will be lucky to get the measly 37% that his father got in 1992.
Now you know how the Liberals felt when Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act. However, unlike us, the Democrats stuck together and Clinton was reelected in Landslide.
The President is going to get creamed either way - so my guess is he will do the right thing - from the beginning he has always done the right thing - I don't think he will change now right in the middle of the stream. I guess that's why his joking about it makes me wonder if I'm more right than I know.
That's your argument? ROFL!
Yeah, I am an idealist.. I have this ideal scenario in mind where Congress doesn't abuse our Constitution and bet our BOR on a game of political blackjack.
Also, in this ideal world of mine Presidents take and oath to defend our Constitution and then, they do.
Guess that makes me a real bastard, eh?
Every law ever found to be unconstitutional had a presidents signature on it.
Every law in force that a president is faced with even though he has stated he felt it to be unconstitutional has defended the law when challenged. Did all of those presidents violate their oaths?
Bush can veto the bill and it will just hibernate until another president signs it
The constitution invests in the judiciary the duty to determine the constitutional soundness as a matter of Fact and Law. Anyone in the country can declare something unconstitutional but their declaration does not carry the force of law and the only power a president has to temporarily take the bill off the table while he is in office.
I realize that is not as sexy as having a president that declares war on the other two branches but that is the process the founders put into place.
If nobody cared he could do what he said he was going to do without fear of reprecussions.
Are you suggesting that he thinks this is a good bill?
You've nailed it. He's playing politics with our BOR. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
That has got to be the absolute worst excuse for signing an UnConsitiutional piece of legislation I have ever heard.
(such as it is.. )
That is a good point and one I haven't really thought about however I have, as the best I can on the web researched this court's record on the 1st amendment and what I have been able to find this particular court even the liberals take a very hard stance on 1st amendment violations. This is a different scenario than 2nd amendment challenges that almost always split conservative/liberal
Yea, that's why the lawmakers swear an oath to "uphold the Constitution", right? If they cannot tell what is Constitutional or not, they have no business being in congress. The judiciary is a citizens last (legal) defense against a tyranical government, the representitives should be the first.
Its already constitutional to restrict hard money "contributions" and soft money ads are not supposed to advocate voting for/against a candidate like Clinton did to Dole with the Untion ads in '96.
If this passes constitutional muster, which it wont, you havent lost your free speech because you can still say whatever you want and you can still run ads. You are only restricted in how you pay for them and what you say. For example in stead of saying call Rep so and so to let him know how you feel (which was always borderline), you would have to say something like when you go to vote next week, make sure you vote for the candidate that will xxxx. Also the bill only affects TV/radio. You can still communicate your message via print ads and "door knockers."
Exactly.. It's like repelling an invasion.
Where do you begin? In the field or on your doorstep?
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.