Posted on 03/29/2002 3:08:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
What do you say to my bottom line question, posted above?
I used the example I did precisely because it was Bush's opinion of the bill. I'm saying it seems to me you disagree with him vehemently on the conclusion that the good in the bill outweighs the bad. Cato, I feel your pain and I am not being sarcastic. I, too, am passionate about our rights and freedoms as Americans. But I just can't agree that we can or should expect a president to determine a bill's constitutionality. He can determine its value---and in this, in your view, he apparently failed and big-time---but constitutionality? No.
Thanks for the civil discussion, anyway.
I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree. The branches of government have been out of whack for years, but that's not the point. The President wasn't meant to be Congress' rubber stamp. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a President.
People like me who actually take what other people SAY and BELIEVE and THINK into consideration?
People like me who don't think that anybody who disagrees with me is a traitor, or wants to shred the Constitution, or doesn't understand plain English, or isn't a real conservative?
I can see how people like myself bug the crap out of you. And I am SO GLAD I don't know anybody in my real life like you; you're so strident life around you must be miserable. God help anybody who isn't perfect or disagrees with you.
Looks like some are slow learners. You never let one branch of government get by with subverting the Constitution much less two of them then on the chance a yet third branch {who's record is at best poor on such matters of the Constitution} stop tyranny. Didn't the Impeachment of Clinton teach anyone anything?
The bill as written should have never left congress. I'll go further it should have died in comittee. Yet it made it not only past two houses but POTUS as well. We have been in a Constitutional crisis for nearly 4 years now with two of three branches out to lunch on upholding their oath to defend the Constitution.
I do have to wonder if this law was written to kill every first born male child if the people would be willing to wait on the USSC? Or better yet kill their first born male as it has become law until USSC decides if it will even hear the case at all and overturn it as being UnConstitutional? This was dangerous precedent on the part of congress and POTUS. People it seems forget a trial or challange of this law in no way means the USSC will even bother to hear it at all.
No were not talking about first born males. But we are talking about the 1st ammendment as we know it to be. We are gambling away our childrens future in hopes the USSC will bail out bad judgement {in the very least} on the part of two branches of governmnet who swear an oath to do better than that.
But to make my point very clear we indeed daily kill our first born males with the blessing of the USSC. We call it abortion. Yet the right to LIFE/ Liberty, and persuit of happiness is the declaration foundation of our nation. How much further do we lower the standard? Better yet is there a standard left to lower in our government?
Good.
And us gurls find no pleasure in debating Master de'baters either....now play nice..before I break out that can o' B*&*^ Slap.....I may be "little"..but i pack a powerful punch....
Notice that they have now moved on to THIS ridiculous argument. "What would it take for you to hate him?"
I'm beginning to think the one thing Bush could do that would send me over the edge is to agree with THEM.
I'm not here to sway you. I'm here to beat the political crap outta you. =^)
Seriously. I don't deal in hypothetical questions. Besides, I'm not running for office. Yet.
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.