Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."

Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

[Libertarian_4_eva]

Listen. If Bush vetoed this law, it could and would very well come up again. If he signs it, then sends it to SCOTUS (as he has said in his own press release that parts of it are unconstitutional), SCOTUS could rule on it and render the decision that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it would never be brought up again...ever.

What drugs are you on? The democrats will bring it up over and over again. I did not vote for bush so he can send all the hard decisions to the supreme court. When the democrats try to stop home schooling do you want him to send it to the supreme court on that one also?

[DJ88]

Hey, I just thought of something else NO ONE HAS MENTIONED..when they were debating this on the Senate Floor, the RATS mentioned there was MORE TO COME. What if they tried to shut down INTERNET WEBSITES? If President Bush signs this, then let's the Supreme Court strike down the "Free Speech" parts, that would mean that FREE SPEECH would almost likely include the INTERNET and the Dems would not be able to pass THAT into law. Hmmm.

[goodnesswins]

Hey...I'm not "prejudiced" against young people ("ad hominem attack?").....but I'm confident in my opinion (already stated) because of experience. There are SOME young people who I believe would be very good choosers when it comes to donations....but the majority would not. They can volunteer their services. When they are completely on their own, then they can choose and willingly donate their money (not their side job money - their hard earned salary with which they support themselves.) Don't take it personally.

[davidosborne]

very well stated

[Libertarian_4_eva]

But you libertarians don't vote Republican anyway. What does your opinion of Bush matter? You didn't vote for Bush in the first place! Of course you'd be Bush bashers, no matter what he does.

Who ever said that all libertarians do not vote for republicans? I cannot vote for republicans in NY state they are worse then the friggen democrats.

[DJ88]

What drugs are you on? WHEN, not IF, the SCOTUS rules that the FREEDOM OF SPEECH part of this bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that is IT. The END OF THE LINE. The rats cannot bring that up AGAIN.

[Dan from Michigan]

The goal of electorial politics is to reward your friends and punish your enemies.

That's right...Bush is forgetting what GOT HIM there(NRA). He gets hit from the right, and hit from the left. It's tough to win a pincer attack.

Unless he shapes up, he's toast. I could give a rip about polls and approval ratings. Klinton had a 60% approval rating and won with 49%.

He's forgetting what got him there(NRA), like his old man did. The right spites him for Perot, or even Klinton(won gun vote). Some slick southern dem governor comes around and BOOM. It's over. 1992 all over again.

[davidosborne]

They wanted this for one reason and one reason only, so Bush would veto it, thus ensuring that they could attack him and the GOP in 2002 and 2004.

IF that is true WHY not use the "Bully Pulpit" to SAY it... and then still VETO it as UN-Constitutional

[Zack Nguyen]

It also bans any broadcast advertising containing a candidate's name 60 dyas before a general election and 30 days before a primary. It also possibly changes laws so that grassroots groups like National Right to Life and Christian Coalition couldn't do non-partisan voter guides before an election. Not absolutely certain about the latter, but certain about the former. Basically shuts down free speech.

[My Favorite Headache]

Here is how Bush will earn back my vote that he has lost tonight...kill Saddam Hussein. Nothing fancy and nothing great...just kill Saddam Hussein. If he grants blanket amnesty? He can kiss my vote and my family's forever gone.This CFR bill has pissed me off to the core. How dare he go back on his word to protect,defend, and honor the constitution. HOW DARE HE?

[davidosborne]

Isn't that akin to committing a crime JUST so that you can go to court and have the Judge tell you what you did was ILLEGAL????? Pretty stupid, and yet NO DEFENSE.. The Judge would say the law was CLEARLY WRITTEN in black and white and therefore you KNEW it was wrong without the judge having tell you to your face!!!

[Zack Nguyen]

So no one except the media and other candidates should be able to broadcast the name of a candidate 60 days before an election? So it's alright to sign blatantly unconstitutional legislation into law if it assures your re-election? Surely you don't mean those things.

[Zack Nguyen]

LOL.

[VMI70]

Hopefully, McConnell, ACLU, ACU, and others are ready to file a suit and get the 60-day restriction removed as soon as possible.

This is not a flame; you just happened to be the first to address this.

Why in the hell are we letting wusso off the hook for signing this, hoping for a SCOTUS reversal? Like father like son. After all the complaining over the years about the courts legislating from the bench, we think it's just great that GWB is going to sign this as part of a grand politcal scheme to let the courts overturn it? If that's his plan then it's Hillary in '04 for me, so we can really have a revolution.

FReegards,

[DJ88]

No, it's NOT stupid. Calm down. Or don't, it's your choice. Why do you think the SCOTUS was created in the first place? To sit there in black robes twiddling their fingers? They'll take the case, and they'll render a decision that the RATS tried to undermine the Constitution.

Besides, if GWB vetoed it, it would come back again in a few years, most likely because the RATS would pound GWB on embracing "the big money corporations" (as Joe Lieberman tried to point out today on the floor), and more than likely the Republicans would lose the next election and then we would have an unconsitutional law on our hands because the RATS would take about 5 minutes to get it passed.

Think of the whole puzzle, not just pieces of it.

[Zack Nguyen]

To the Honorable Billybob:

The Christian Coalition of America has said repeatedly that this bill might stop them from doing voter guides before elections. Of course these voter guides are not broadcast, but they do mention a candidate's name, and are certainly printed within 60 days of an election. Do you consider this to be accurate in your legal opinion?

[PhilDragoo]

This law will never be implemented, it will be subject to legal challenge immediately and will never silence anybody, except for that PSYCHO John McCain and his rat minions in 2002 and 2004 who can finally shut up about CFR.

Pretty soon the only thing the Rats will have to run on is more welfare and higher taxes.

Don't worry, be happy.

Copy PSYCHO John McCain.

Re Rats having squat to run on: from your lips to God's ear.

As for "Don't worry, be happy"--now you've set the way-back machine for Meher Baba in the late '60's. And this is that type of faith-based, Hail Mary, Let It Be mechanism.

Let me exorcise some demons.

It's always dangerous to violate the First Amendment, and doubly so as long as Hillary Clinton is alive. Barbara Olson pegged her sealed Wellesley thesis as a paean to Saul Alinsky, radical counselling "Tell any lie for power."

Barbara Olson was taken in the wink of an eye. And everyone here is banking on Ted being point man in slaying the extant dragon.

If John Grisham or Tom Clancy were ghosting fate, one of the conservative SC majority would retire or take a nap in Ft. Marcy Park, or have his or her loved one threatened or a scandalous event brought to light as blackmail.

Poof. No Supreme Court smackdown. No mention of candidates 60 days before the general. The media says Hillary!tm a quadrillion times and the hypnoids trancelike press the lever for the food pellet and elect the rat.

Having said the sum of all fears, per Sister Cleo's Third Corollary, it cannot come to pass.

For if it did, and with this dangerous precedent having pushed the fence over on the First Amendment, the Dictocrat Camp Commandant would lead her rat minions in the Sewernate to further amending CFR until Congress shall abridge the freedom of speech whenever it chooses.

Only due to the Manchurian Candidate from Arizona was this game-set-match tar baby set into ambulation.

I do hope the SC will send it over a cliff, as watching McCain turn purple and Daschle break a molar will be a great catharsis.

If anything happens to just one conservative justice with this Democrat Senate, it will not be possible to get a conservative replacement.

And as adept as Democrats are at stealing elections, their ouster this November is not a sure thing. Devoutly to be wished, but requiring traversing their sewage pit.

For the sake of the nation may Bush dodge the bullet and McCain fall on his sword.

[tpaine]

Thank you. Two buzzards with one stone.

[Buckeroo]

"They'll [SCOTUS] take the case, and they'll render a decision that the RATS tried to undermine the Constitution." -- DJ88

I hate to step on your toes. But ever since Roosevelt, SCOTUS has consistently under-mined the Constitution. Ever hear of Roe vs. Wade, as an example?

[VMI70]

See #454