60-40 Senate Votes to Stomp out Freedom of Speech

[toenail]

In direct and wanton violation of their oaths of office, sixty U.S. Senators just voted to squash the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[Congressman Billybob]

Congress will adjourn sine die. which means without setting a specific day. They leave behind a few members of each House with the power to call them back into session. This is done in order to prevent a pocket veto by the President. That tactic is not the answer.

Billybob

[EBUCK]

If he signs it there will be no media backlash because the media will have won a huge share of the political pie. They will be the only ones that can speak out in the last 60 days of an election. Who do you think they'll speak out against?

EBUCK

[Wphile]

I like this idea but didn't the SCOTUS already shoot down the line-item-veto?

[RoseofTexas]

I'm a little confused here, so WHAT'S THE PRESIDENT TO DO??

[Congressman Billybob]

NORMALLY, when the Supreme Court strikes some provisions of a law that has a severability clause, the rest of the law stands as written. Notice I said "normally."

There is a way to get the entire bill struck when only some portions of it are declared unconstitutional. In fact, there are two routes to that highly desirable outcome. Both will be in my brief to the Supreme Court, IF this bill becomes law.

Billybob

[AmishDude]

That's why the "IIRC". I don't know. I had thought it was an open question because no president had tried. It really doesn't matter if he wins the line-item veto fight or not, because the focus will not be on CFR, but on the line-item veto. In any case, CFR will either be thrown out or gutted (the option I would prefer) by the courts quietly and with little fanfare.

[Congressman Billybob]

I did not say I KNOW what the President will do. I said I KNOW he has one option before him which has never been used before by any President on any bill, but which could be the precise answer to this conundrum, If Fliescher announces tomorrow that Bush finds the bill both poitically wrong AND unconstitutional, but does NOT state what the President WILL do, then we are headed down the right path.

Billybob

[CedarDave]

I hope Bush uses it.

You sound a little less certain of the outcome of the "Secret Strategy" than you did yesterday. I pray that Bush does the right thing by vetoing this monstrosity, and not letting it go to the Supreme Court for resolution. In his oath of office he took on the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and a pass on this would violate that oath. In the meantime, as I said I would do, I have sent an email to the White House urging a veto and will follow-up with a phone call to them tomorrow a.m.

[davidosborne]

A VETO would save us ALL a lot of time... and give President Bush a strong "Stand on Principle" image....

[okiedust]

The media will get what it wants, and it will trash Bush for compromising his principles. They will not be grateful, they will remain true to the interests of the democrat party. They crucified 41 for his reversal of the no new taxes pledge even tho that is what they wanted, and they will do the same to 43. There will be a backlash any way you slice it. He should realise this and do the right thing and stay true to his base.

That's what I see anyway.

regards

[Congressman Billybob]

Nice guess, but no. The Supreme Court ruled about a century ago in response to a President's request for an advisory opinion that the Court's constitutional duty is decide "cases or controversies" but not issue "advisory opinions." It confirmed this position in later cases.

Close, but no cigar.

Congressman Billybob

[razorback-bert]

Why is it Senator McCain wants so bad to go down in history as the vile monster who destroyed free speech in America?

Because he came out of the war a hero and knows when history is rewritten later he will be a hero once again.

If it worked once why not again?

[GOP_Lady]

So, what's the solution then? Why not tell us in order that we might learn. Thanks!

[AmishDude]

I hate to toot my own horn (OK, that's a lie) but see #218.

[Congressman Billybob]

The solution to the problem requires doing something that amounts to neither a veto nor a signing (and is also not a pocket veto). The lamestream media are assuming that those are the only options. So are most of the people here.

There IS another option. I hope you see it happen. It has never been done before. I hope it is done now. It is constitutional.

Billybob

[GOP_Lady]

Please tell us already.

[Congressman Billybob]

Nope. Not a line item veto, Congress attempted to create that by statute. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Only a constitutional amendment can give a President that power, which about half of all governors now possess. That ain't it.

Billybob

[CedarDave]

...didn't the SCOTUS already shoot down the line-item-veto?

I think they did. As I recall, the Republican Congress (some time after winning both houses in 1994), sent a bill with the line item veto that was appoved by Clinton. Sometime later, he used it (only once I think), and the Supreme Court bounced it. Anyone here who can give more info or correct me??

[RamsNo1]

I keep hearing that the media says Bush will sign this. But I believe that this applies to what Bush said last year and under certain conditions. The media has been putting words in the President's mouth since January 21, 2001 and never believe a news report about the President until you hear it from Ari Fleischer or Bush, himself.

[CedarDave]

Keep'em guessing!! LOL