[Texasforever]

Bush, during the interview, said he'd veto unconstitutional legislation that came his way. Yet Bush signed CFR even though he knew it to be unconstitutional. Therefore, his final action was not consistent with this campaign message. One could argue that Bush's view evolved, and that would be a legit stance. But one cannot argue that there WAS no change. See where I'm coming from?

There was only ONE 1st amendment question regarding CFR. That was the issue ad ban. That was a poison pill placed there as veto bait by the Senate democrats. They were convinced Bush would veto the bill because it was obviously un-constitutional. They then had a 2002 campaign issue that Bush and the GOP were anti reform and at the same time they kept their original cash cow in soft money in tact.

Do you think for one moment that the Democrats would vote for a Campaign bill that actually works against them if they thought the president would actually sign it? Hell NO!. They got cute and placed an undeniable 1st amendment violation in the bill, Bush signed it, that portion will be struck down and the democrats have NO issue to go with their own agreement to cut off the soft money they rely on.

[NittanyLion]

I agree with everything you said. But I think personally I would've vetoed it and told Congress if they removed that questionable portion I'd sign it. I think we could've turned the situation to our advantage, as opposed to relying on SCOTUS to strike certain provisions.

Oh well, this has been hashed and rehashed. I don't expect the solution will present itself tonight... Feel free to have the last word.

[Starwind]

The point of this post is to highlight the good possibility that CFR/McCainFeingold will in fact be affirmed by the SCOTUS, and that President Bush had the last, best opportunity to prevent it.

Ostensibly, President Bush signed into law what some believe to be an unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill (McCain Feingold), with a view toward leaving it to the SCOTUS to determine actual constitutionality, as the Judicial branch ought. The conventional wisdom was that in spite of the Democrats having inserted a presumed unconstitutional provision (attempting to force a Bush veto), Bush instead would sign the bill, the SCOTUS would reject it (in whole or in part), Bush would get the political gain of having signed the bill, and the country would be unharmed.

The problem with that view is the current makeup of the Supreme Court may likely affirm the bill as constitutional:

There are at least three or maybe four justices who would likely rule against:

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy**

Four justices who would likely affrim in favor:

Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer

And O'Connor would be the swing vote, as she often is when the court is split.

So there are at least two possibilities of affirming CFR:

a 4-5 split in favor

against - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy**

for - Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, O'Connor*

or a 3-6 split in favor

against - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

for - Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy**, O'Connor*

And one possibility of CFR being rejected:

against - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy**, O'Connor*

for - Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer

The SCOTUS ruling on June 25, 2001 illuminates how the justices would be inclined to split Court Upholds Party Spending Limits

"In the court's split ruling today, swing-vote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor* joined Souter and the court's other moderates and liberals, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens. Another swing-voter, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy**, joined Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and fellow conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent."

Clearly, there may other variations on this theme, but the essential point is that of a very narrow split with odds in favor of affirming the bill, and not the 'slam-dunk' rejection most implicitly assume.

Rich Lowery writing 3/21/02 for The National Review Online here on the President's awareness of CFR's unconstitutional provisions:

So, President Bush thinks the campaign-finance-reform bill he's going to sign "does present some legitimate constitutional questions."

Ramesh Ponnuru writing 3/25/02 for the National Review Online here on the President's prerogative and responsibility to veto unconstitutional bills:

notably...

"Presidents and legislators swear an oath to uphold the former [Constitution]. But a constitutionalist political culture is hard to sustain if the Constitution is held to be the exclusive property of an unelected elite. In that case, lawmakers will not look to the Constitution when doing their jobs-a phenomenon all too evident in the campaign-finance debate. A judicial monopoly on constitutional interpretation poses the additional danger of reducing the Constitution to a mere grant of judicial power."

and...

"If President Bush signs the bill, he will have no such defense. In the month of his inauguration, he said that he regarded key provisions of the bill as unconstitutional and would therefore veto it. Those provisions are still there."

Just trying to add a couple more facts to the debate.