It sure is noisy in here!

The noise level in the forum needs to abate so issues can be discussed on their merits and not deliberate misrepresentation of this President’s, motives, decisions and conservative credentials. The decisions Bush has made on the immigration reform act and the CFR are not the same decisions I would have made but they are principled decisions not based on polls or focus groups. For those of you that hold principle as your standard I would think that would be a plus in your assessment but I guess when your ox is being gored, the presence of principle is not as important an attribute as you claim.

I see the same misrepresentation of Bush’s positions on the CFR as I saw on the IRA. The charges are being thrown right and left that he “lied” to us as a candidate when he said he opposed campaign finance reform and is now doing a “read my lips” part two. When the thread that called for a “freep” of the President was posted a few days ago I said I was willing to do so because I don’t like CFR any more than the rest of you but I also asked the author of the thread if anyone had done a comparison to the bill that is now passed with Bush’s positions during the campaign. I was told that was a good idea and that such a comparison would be forthcoming. I waited until last night and nothing was done so I went looking on my own and found Bush’s plan after getting the nomination and 90% of what he wanted and advocated is in the new bill, He has not reneged on a campaign promise he let all of us know his position well in advance, I have attached that plan along with the applicable sections in the CFR that was passed today. It would be nice if Bush had the line-item veto so he could excise the bad parts but he does not and will rely on the courts to do it for him.

I have no illusions that this will sway any of the newly “disaffected” Bush supporters but to those of you that actually wish to criticize in a rational manner, I hope this helps.

On February 15, 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush, the eventual winner of the Republican Party's presidential nomination, outlined a campaign finance reform proposal that he claimed would "increase citizen participation, return honor to our system, and restore confidence in our democracy." The proposal consists of a package of reforms that include a partial ban on soft money donations, an increase in individual contribution limits to candidates, restrictions on labor union political activities, a ban on the solicitation of contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session, and disclosure of contributions on the Internet. The primary objective of these reforms is to protect the rights of individual citizens and groups to make contributions to political campaigns and otherwise express their views in the political process. The reforms also seek to preserve the integrity of the political process by placing new restrictions on contributions, and requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

The Bush proposal calls for a partial ban on soft money contributions to political parties. It would prohibit corporate and labor union soft money donations, but would continue to allow individual soft money contributions. In recent election cycles, more than two-thirds of the soft money raised by the national party organizations came from corporate and labor union funds, so the proposed change would have a significant effect in reducing the amount of soft money raised at the national level. The Governor's plan thus calls for more stringent regulation of soft money than the proposals advanced by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but it is less comprehensive than the total ban on soft money donations included in the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills. Covered in SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

The plan also restricts the monies used by labor unions for political activities by incorporating a "paycheck protection" provision that would grant union members a right to decide whether a portion of their dues would be used for political purposes. In this way it seeks to promote the principle that all monies used in federal political campaigns should be voluntarily contributed. Bush's proposal thus reaches beyond the provisions of McCain-Feingold or other similar reform packages, which recognize the right of non-union members to consent to the use of their dues for political purposes, by extending this practice to union members as well. A "paycheck protection" provision of this kind has been advocated by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but is generally considered a "poison pill" guaranteeing the defeat of any reform plan by Democrats. Moreover, unlike the "paycheck protection" proposal drafted by Senate Republicans Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe in the 105th Congress, the Bush proposal includes no comparable provision offering corporate shareholders an opportunity to consent to the use of corporate treasury funds for political purposes. Covered in SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONEERING

Bush had already taken care of the paycheck protection problem his first month in office with the following Executive order

Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders." One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.

In addition to allowing individual soft money contributions, the Bush plan seeks to preserve the First Amendment rights of individuals to participate in the financing of campaigns by other means. The proposal calls for an increase in the amount an individual may contribute to a federal candidate by adjusting the current limit for inflation, which would raise the current limit of $1,000 per election to approximately $3,300 per election. Covered inSEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE and SEC. 307. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. All individual and independent limits raised.

Furthermore, Bush would place no restrictions on issue advocacy; rather, his plan affirms the right of individuals and groups to run issue advocacy advertisements without being subject to federal regulation. Covered under SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS. And `(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include—

ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;

Governor Bush also wants to preserve "donor choice" by eliminating the ability of federal candidates to transfer or "roll over" excess campaign funds from a prior bid for federal office to a subsequent campaign for a different federal office. Current law allows a federal candidate to transfer an unlimited amount raised for one federal campaign to another; for example, a senator running for president can transfer any amount of excess campaign money from a previous senate race to a presidential campaign fund. The Bush plan would end this practice to ensure that monies raised from donors who support a candidate for one office are not used to finance a subsequent campaign that donors may not support.

One reform offered by Bush that has not been included in the campaign finance legislation that has reached the floor in recent sessions of Congress is a prohibition on the solicitation of contributions during legislative sessions. Under Bush's proposal, Members of Congress would be prohibited from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session. In other words, members will only be allowed to solicit or accept gifts from these individuals when Congress is in recess. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the legislative process from improper conduct or actions that create an appearance of impropriety. It is modeled on similar provisions that have been adopted in some states, including Texas, which prohibits campaign contributions during the legislative session.

During the presidential prenomination period, the Bush campaign has been posting donor information on the campaign's Internet site on a weekly basis. This practice would become a requirement of federal law under the Bush proposal in an effort to make information on campaign donors available to the electorate in a more timely manner. The Governor's plan would amend current law on disclosure and electronic filing to require candidates to disclose on the Internet all campaign contributions within one week of their receipt. Under current FEC rules, candidates for the presidential nomination file quarterly reports during the off-election year and monthly reports during the election year Covered in TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

Gee, if I were you, I wouldn't get any sleep at all, either, thinking about NONEXISTANT white guys, who weren't here in the 1500's ( that's when the 16th century was ! ) , fighting King George III, who hadn't even been born yet , giving up their lives for nothing . : ^ )

Far TOO many FREEPERS don't belong here. They have absolutely NO idea what politics and governance entails. Neither have they managed to learn anything, during their stay here; no matter how long, or how little. To top that off, they would rather have the House, Senate, and the White House controled by Dems, and cry in their beer. That's NOT what I want

You know, that really is a ridiculous statement - elitist, catty and self-serving. This is a great forum for varying points of view. Agree or disagree on the merits of a debate. You may fancy yourself an intellectual giant amongst the little people around here, but people who are truly secure in their knowledge don't betray it by displaying this kind of attitude.

Later courts may overturn a decision which was unconstitutional, yet mistakenly ruled constitutional by a biased Court. Every law is not constitutional once passed, signed, and approved.

They certainly can but until a new court rules differently the law is in place and enforced and by definition constitutional. Not right or wrong just that it had followed the constitutional process. Their is no criminal jeopardy against those that pass and sign laws within the boundaries of the process laid out in the constitution that the court deems unconstitutional. Some may argue that there should be but the Founders did not agree.

Does that give the legislature the right to ignore constitutionality because they know it will go to the courts anyway so why bother? That means the legislators are feigning ignorance and not fully and appropriately performing their duties as elected officials. If they know that it will go to the courts anyway than what do these legislators do all day long but listen to their own drivvle even if it makes no sense, which it doesn't most of the time.

Balance of Powers are what the founding fathers wanted, you don't believe in it.

On the contray, I have been talking exclusively about the balance of powers. It is you that does not understand it. The Congress writes the laws, The executive swears to uphold the laws and the judiciary sits in judgment on the laws. It works well.

law is in place and enforced and by definition constitutional

I'm not sure if we're playing semantics here, but it looks to me like your statment prima faciae assumes that the Court's approval makes a thing constitutional, which is in the "absolute" sense absurd--a Court claiming that a law mandating the execution of everyone past childbearing age was constitutional would not make that law in accord with the constitution. Of course, the Court upholding a law means the law is still binding on us, and thus that we must obey it or break it and present ourselves for trial and punishment to give the matter another hearing.

I have supported Bush since he first ran for governor of Texas. But I am so blazing mad that I can't support anyone next time around.

Folks, I smell a seminar caller.

Executing assigned Disruptor Detection Duties flawlessly...

There were a few white guys here in the 1500s ...Spanish and French mainly and they were too busy saving their scalps to worry about lofty ideals like Constitutions and Revolting against wiggy Kings. I bet they were expedient though..LOL

Good Night...

If they know that it will go to the courts anyway than what do these legislators do all day long but listen to their own drivvle even if it makes no sense, which it doesn't most of the time.

I can't argue with that. LOL But the fact remains, the constitution invests law making powers with elected representatives. They have the constitutional authority to pass about anything they want with one exception, they cannot pass a law whose substance has been already deemed unconstitutional by the court. That is why many are convinced the CFR will be substantially pruned since to court has spoken on similar items in the past. Precedent is sacred in the courts.

If Texasforever is a " dying breed ", because he supports President Bush, then the next president will be Dick Gephart, Hilary Clinton, Al Sharpton. one of the Kerrys , or some other Dem, we dont know ablout yet. Happy now ? Pleased as punch are you ?

Tell me, dear, since you have such depth of perception, just how badly is President Bush going to lose by and who will be the next president ? Surely, you do know that, don't you ? The election is only two + years away, the president has close to an 80 % approval rating now,but the American public has such a short attention span, and most dont pay anywhere near as much attention to things as FREEPERS do , so ... what is going to change their minds ?

Oh yes, and have you taken a poll on this ? How do you KNOW that the majority of people have decided that President Bush is worthy of abandoning ... hmmmmm ?

It's people like you and Bush who allow our liberties to be dwindled away because of a lack of moral fiber and inability to take a stand for what is right no matter the cost.

I hope your not really that freaking stupid...

Oh wait, you are.

a Court claiming that a law mandating the execution of everyone past childbearing age was constitutional would not make that law in accord with the constitution. Of course, the Court upholding a law means the law is still binding on us, and thus that we must obey it or break it and present ourselves for trial and punishment to give the matter another hearing.

Look, that is what I mean the hyperbole. IF we ever get a court that says that the this entire argument is moot. At that point there is no constitution there is just every man for himself. Now, I did NOT say that the law was good or bad but that it was passed, signed and put into enforcement within the constitutional framework the founders provided. The last step in that process is the right of the people to redress their grievances in the courts when that law causes the injury.

I read this 8 times and I still don't get how 245i gives amnesty to illegals who weren't legally here in the first place.

How dare you bother to bring logic and comprehension into this!!

Can't you see that many here are too busy with the orgy of Bush Bashing to be trifled with such things??

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.