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 ...
From the top of this thread.
So? Freep, it will not change a thing. For whatever reason, he will sign the bill and the court will do their job and test the bill against the 1st amendment and the constitutional process will have been upheld as the Constitution requires by fact and law..
Yep, that is called free speech.
President Bush and his aides came to office with an almost religious devotion to honoring his campaign promises. Lately, his approach appears to have become more flexible.
In recent days, the White House has taken positions on international trade, foreign policy and campaign finance reform that seem to contradict the president's campaign stances, a number of political observers in both parties say. Partially because of the counterterrorism war and partially because of a natural transition into the second year of governing, GOP strategists say -- and a few White House officials agree -- that the campaign commitments are no longer as binding as they once were.
On Wednesday, for example, President Bush said he would sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation into law. In early 2000, Bush was asked on ABC News whether he would veto the bill, and he replied, "Yes, I would."
FULL STORY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11858-2002Mar24.html
On Wednesday, for example, President Bush said he would sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation into law. In early 2000, Bush was asked on ABC News whether he would veto the bill, and he replied, "Yes, I would."
Hell they can never be a vicious as those from his fellow "conservatives". But ya’ll go ahead tell him you won’t vote for him if blah blah blah but don’t be surprised if he just says screw you. I would.
Because over the course of 2 years that bill was re-written at least 3 times. Yes it still carries the same name but it is NO where near the same bill that McCain first put forward. TLB politics are not static.
And Bush didn't compromise on dumping the Kyoto treaty or dumping the ABM treaty, did he? So saying he has compromised on everything is not factually correct.
They assume that the people who voted for them before will grumble a bit, but vote for them anyway.
Examples are Nixon saddling the U.S. Taxpayer with the hideous Food Stamp Program, and 41's infamous "Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES!"
It never occurs to politicians that their base of support perceives a compromise as a betrayal of trust. No, they just assume that we will still vote for them, regardless of their betrayal.
Far from surprised, my friend: President Bush is right on track to being another one-term President who was voted OUT of office, just like his Dad was.
What is sad, is that the democrats have NO ethics, so when they are voted in, by default, they drag the rest of our Republic down into their corrupt filth.
Me too. Unfortunately, I have no idea what these "other reasons" might be.
And you need to reread the Constitution, especially Article III, which delegates the power to interpret and determine the constitutionality of legislation to the Judiciary. If CFR is as unconstitutional as most of the pundits on FreeRepublic tend to think (and I tend to agree), then the opponents of the legislation shouldn't have too much difficulty finding a Federal Judge to enjoin enforcement of CFR until the Supreme Court has the oppurtunity to strike it down in whole or in part. President Bush, in the mean time, comes out smelling a field of daisies because (a) McCain can't use CFR against Bush given the fact that Bush signed McCain's bill into law; and (b) for obvious reasons, the Democraps won't be able to campaign against Bush on CFR.
The real problem is not that Bush will sign an unconstitutional CFR bill, but that Sean Hannity, Rush, Will, Novak, and all the amateur pundits within the FreeRepublic could be wrong about the unconstitutionality of CFR, in which case President Bush will have signed into law one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the United States, and there will be absolutely nothing that we can do about it except throw the bums out out, and hope that a new congress will repeal the law at a later time. In other words, the problem is not that Bush might sign a bad bill into a law, which ultimately proves unconstitutional, but rather, that he might sign a bad bill into a law that ultimately survives constitutional scrutiny.
Ok, now you're starting to get it.
The rest was history.
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.