Ashcroft’s Unconstitutional Problem

National Review Online | February 25, 2002 | Rich Lowery

[LavaDog]

President Bush uphold your oath to defend the Constitution! VETO!

[Fury]

Thanks for posting this article, LavaDog. What this means is that "words mean things", when you get down to it.

[NEPA]

Pundits are predicting Bush will sign it but I'm hoping he will surprise them and do the right thing (something political pundits aren't used to expecting).

On the other hand, if Bush signs a bill he knows to be unconstitutional then he is willfully violating his oath of office and he lowers himself to the same DC political scum that's been ruining this country for so long. If he is unwilling to expend some political capital to do the right thing and instead waits for the courts to clean up the mess, then he is taking the coward's way out.

[Tauzero]

"On the other hand, if Bush signs a bill he knows to be unconstitutional then he is willfully violating his oath"

What I don't understand is why Bush is not given a pass on CFR, but is on things like the Bush-Kennedy education plan.

[Arthur McGowan]

I have seen more than one Freeper argue that a bill isn't unconstitutional until it comes before the Supreme Court for review! These Freepers argue that the President should sign ANYTHING, and that Congress should pass ANYTHING, because the word "unconstitutional" means nothing, until the Supreme Court declares somethign "unconstitutional."

When "conservatives" argue this way, it's all over.

If Bush signs Shays-Meehan, he's violating his oath of office--no matter what he "hopes" the Supreme Court may do down the road.

[StriperSniper]

A veto with a strong speach, naming names, could put this issue to bed for a long time. Expose the hypocracy, demand some real reform that respects the Constitution (unlimited donations, total disclosure, let the people decide). He should explain things in simple terms as a non-lawyer like most of the people in the country. Say right out that all this bill does is take away freedom of speach for some and hide the corruption better.

Is this so hard?

[Charlotte Corday]

I have no love for the Bush-Kennedy plan either.

Unfortunately the Tenth Amendment has been essentially gutted by the courts with Republican acquiesence. Only the minor parties such as Libertarian or Constitution seem to pay it any reverence.

The first amendment however, is one which I had hoped up until now that the GOP would be willing to support.

[Charlotte Corday]

If President Bush were to strip to the buff, paint himself orange, and publicly urinate on the Washington Monument there'd be many on FR who'd say, "Don't be concerned, it's all part of his deep strategy."

[JohnGalt]

Come on now, the First Amendment is about Government art and porno, not commercial and political speech.

[proxy_user]

"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out.

Well, he doesn't have to argue very hard. For example, Bush could instruct Ashcroft to present an absurd or incompetent argument to the Supreme Court, although for political reasons he shouldn't make it too obvious.

[thepitts]

Is it a crime to violate an oath of office?

[Wolfie]

An AG defending an unconstitutional law is hardly a novel situation.

[Wurlitzer]

Pres. Bush should just ignore the bill. With Congress in session, it will become law without his signature then let the "Less Than Supreme Court" decide. If Congress were not in session, it would be a pocket veto.

[AAABEST]

Bush is a great manager, a competent Commander in Chief and a seemingly honest guy.

Too bad he's a wimp and a rotten president to conservatives and constitutionalists. He loves government and had to buy a political philosophy when he ran for Pres.

His motto seems to be "can't we all just get along".

I'm nearly sure he'll voilate his oath of office and sign this POS. I honestly hope he proves me wrong.

[Fury]

I'm nearly sure he'll voilate his oath of office and sign this POS. I honestly hope he proves me wrong.

Would it not be something if GW did this, and then the DEMS would state what he did (by signing) was unconstitutional! I've heard of stranger things.

[Cosmo]

Lowry has been one of the finest voices on this issue. I'm proud to share my collegiate and journalistic pedigree with him....

[robertpaulsen]

Your argument sounds logical when the bill is one we dislike and the president is one we like. Reverse the two. Still sound good? If so, then you're right. It's all over.

Rich Lowry does make a good point, however. GW's signature "puts the weight of his administration behind the law", even though it is not what GW intends. It's a real dilemma when presented with a bill that may be unconstitutional.

[Free the USA]

Bump List

[Sal]

If he signs this, it will become his "Read my lips".

Here's the proper campaign reform:

Individuals can donate any amount but the recipient must issue immediate disclosure via the internet (say within 3 to 5 days of receipt or face the punishment of those funds being directly taken by a new watchdog agency whose sole pupose would be to scoom up those unreported funds and apply them to the national debt);

Corporations, unions or any organizations are NOT citizens and don't have the same rights as citizens, therefore they can't contribute directly to candidates--but they can spend whatever they deem proper on TV, radio or mail urging their customers, members or whatever to vote for and/or send money to XXXX candidate--but they must accurately identify ALL contributors to whatever front organization they set up or face jail-type prosecution for fraud.

Example: "Citizens for Fighting Fraud in Government" or some such would have to publically include in/on the ads etc. that they are supported by, say, Enron, George Soros, Global Crossing...

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."