It sure is noisy in here!

March 20, 2002 | Texasforever

[abner]

Trying out the beta forum here...

Thanks for the ping.
Great, the bill gives Bush 90% of what he wants. So, does that change the unconstitutional parts? I'm still ticked. I'm ticked that the only people that either party puts out for election are so easy to throw out that little piece of paper.

Also, I had thought that President Bush was more of a man of principle. The principle here being the Constitution. Not what he wants. That is disappointing.

[smileee]

I see what you mean. This is confusing to me, I wonder how the illegals are going to sort it out?

[nopardons]

He IS " principled "; you just dont like his principles. Get over it !

Now, newbie, with THAT attitude, we'll have President Gephart or President HITLERY. You like that ? Stop being such a political naif. You may enjoy cutting off your nose to spit your ace, but after 8 long, weary, gut turning years of X42, one would think that you were tired of that and wouldn't want it back. Not voting, or going fringe party , won't " send a message " to anyone; it WILL help to ensure a Dem victory.

[Texasforever]

GWB has announced that he will sign into law a bill that flies in the face of the constitution. And you don't think this amounts to a broken promise

Bush said his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional, BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is. I do NOT want a president of ANY party making those decisions. That ain't his job. Don't bring up the oath of office because you have NO idea the context in which that oath is given or sworn to. This is going to court very quickly and Ted Olsen will lead the charge. If you look at the bill language the congress has already made provisions for congressional intervention with the courts in case of challange and it does NOT include the Solicitor General.

[america-rules]

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.

I agree that on a technical basis it does give amnesty but they have a bunch of qualifiers that say you had to be here legally first in order to qualify for 245i.

I think this is dractically different then giving a bunch of farm workers who came her through a tunnel in TX years ago amnesty who never came her legally in the first place.

I just read it again so point out what I'm missing? Confused ?

[nopardons]

Right you are !

[abner]

Bush said his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional, BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is. I do NOT want a president of ANY party making those decisions. That ain't his job. Don't bring up the oath of office because you have NO idea the context in which that oath is given or sworn to. This is going to court very quickly and Ted Olsen will lead the charge. If you look at the bill language the congress has already made provisions for congressional intervention with the courts in case of challange and it does NOT include the Solicitor General.

Thanks for that perspective. I needed it.

[RamsNo1]

Very well put. Believe me, I am sick to death about all this and I probably won't sleep tonight. I just keep thinking about those old 16th century white guys who put their lives on the line, if not in battle, with their revolutionary ideas. If they were politically expedient, we wouldn't be sitting here debating this issue.

[america-rules]

"I am sorry that I said it in a crude manner. 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. I will always support Bush on the war effort because I love our troops and for the memory of my late parents who were veterans. I just want to stay proud of a country and a government that they fought for."

The game is just starting the second quarter so maybe you need to tally the score in June 04 when it's close to being over. I suspect the score will be 96% what you want but I'm not ready to do any tally just yet ?

[BluesDuke]

Not only do they violate the "Congress shall make no law..." portion of the First Amendment, but it makes no sense. If it is wrong to mention a candidate's name on TV and radio, then why is it still OK to do it in the newspaper or on the internet? It makes no sense and it WILL be struck down.

It is useful to remind ourselves that Mr. Bush hasn't yet signed the bill; at least, he hadn't when last I heard a report of the bill this afternoon.

But it is also useful to remind ourselves that, while we do indeed have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the law, we also are not out of place to expect that a) the Congress of the United States should not write flagrantly unconstitutional legislation and, b) if they should, that the President of the United States should not sign flagrantly unconstitutional legislation. Someone in the Bush Administration should make it his or her business to sit this President down and pound some sense into him that this legislation is unconstitutional before he does sign it. We should not just comfort ourselves to await a fight to the Supreme Court to be rid of it.

[borntodiefree]

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what you are talking about? If he is or isn't going to veto a bill, what do you think he should be basing his decision on if not the Constitution. I have a problem believing that anyone could seriously say that. Should he base it on if it meets his agenda? Maybe based on what side of the bed he got out on?

I absolutly expect a President to base ALL decisions on the Constitution including vetos just like Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson's veto

[raygun]

It appears that certain people around here have intentions on getting me started.

Can't a wee little itty-bitty guinea pig just go around knocking on things with his trusty little hammer, not having to worry about getting all riled up? Geez. For crying out loud. Man.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/628543/posts

[GeronL]

If the bill is unconstitutional and the President signs it, I would hope someone would introduce articles of impeachment.

Just to make a point of course.

[nopardons]

Oh really ? President Bush is a Republican in name only ? Let's test that one; shall we ?

Republicans re for lower taxes. Bush has already started to do that, with more in the offing. So you lose on that one.

Republicans are for a strong, well funded military. Seems to me that the president is working on that pretty hard. You lose another round.

Republicans don't get us into wars, bt they do well in running them and the mop up . This looks VERY good to me. You've lost round three.

Republicans want to uphold laws, and the immigratio amnesty, is trying to do just that. It is NOT a blanket amnesty for ILLEGALS ; even though Ronald Reagan DID do that. You are losing every point, dear.

Did you call someone a " RINO " ? Why don't you look the word up , beforeyou use it incorrectly , or do you just petulantly enjoy juvenile name calling ?

Am I 100% in accord with everything that President Bush has done ? No, and I probably won't be in the furture, either. What you and others are saying, is political naivete. Get a grip.

[RamsNo1]

Huh? The constitutionality shouldn't be debated in the congress even if they, as lawyers, know it to be wrong? I would have expected the president to put up a bigger fight on this than caving in a few hours after the vote today. If he got on national TV during prime time and explained why he is against it and how it relates to the war on terror there is nobody who could seriously damage him politically. Let's think here about what our troops are fighting for now. Maybe it is to protect our way of life and our freedoms. Maybe they should come home because we need them more in Washington DC.

[GeronL]

Convince enough people to agree with you and you can impeach him

Only the House of Representatives can vote on impeachment and only the Senate can convict

[ArneFufkin]

Thanks for the reality check!

[GeronL]

Great, the bill gives Bush 90% of what he wants

what??

During the campaign Bush said there were 6 things he didn't want in the CFR bill, and they are ALL in there.

[america-rules]

I have a question but before I ask it let me make a qualifier. I am for 100% free speech with zero restrictions. Not a freekin cap on anybody. If Bill Gates wants to spend 10 Bil for some idiot he should have a right to do it. It's his money and it's his free speech. The only restrictions should be the "truth in advertising" law to keep things honest. Anotherwords the James Baird ad would be illegal and the NAACP wouldn't be allow to run that ad again without some changes.

Now with this said here's the question:

If the the current CFR is so bad and tramples on the 1st Ammendment why wasn't there a big outrage over the current CFR. Nobody said squat about repealling CRF before this and now everyone is up in arms on the new CFR. Isn't CFR CFR in any form so why the fuss now?

[Tauzero]

"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. "

You first.