Skip to comments.
Victory For Campaign Reform
CBSNEWS ^
| Thursday, March 21, 2002
Posted on 03/21/2002 2:36:35 AM PST by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
To: xm177e2;mercy;Wait4Truth;hole_n_one;GretchenEE;Clinton's a rapist;buffyt;ladyinred;WolfsView...
To: JohnHuang2
JH2: I thought this was a published editorial piece, then I find out it is "your two cents." Excellent, nay brilliant! And not just because I agree with your sentiments; this is a well-crafted little article. You have great talent, my friend.
3
posted on
03/21/2002 2:45:47 AM PST
by
Illbay
To: Illbay
Thank you, thank you, friend.
To: Illbay
Gotta run, see y'all soon.
To: JohnHuang2
John, CFR is the feelgood bill of the Beltway. It will be challenged before the ink is dry. I agree with your take on why W is gonna sign this thing. W knows that the prohibitions on ads will be struck down. Sometimes the best way to destoy something is to embrace it.
To: JohnHuang2
So why is he signing it? Most likely, his advisors tell him that signing it is the easiest way to kill it -- once and for all. The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions. Doubling the limits on hard money donations to candidates -- a Republican advantage -- will likely survive, but not much else. Drive a stake into it! All that will remain is increased hard money dontations. Senator Mitch McConnell deserves an medal.
To: JohnHuang2
So why is he signing it? Most likely, his advisors tell him that signing it is the easiest way to kill it -- once and for all. The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions. Doubling the limits on hard money donations to candidates -- a Republican advantage -- will likely survive, but not much else. Drive a stake into it! All that will remain is increased hard money dontations. Senator Mitch McConnell deserves an medal.
To: JohnHuang2
Dear John, The plan I knew about, and had been floated at the White House, involved three steps. 1) Attorney General Ashcroft issues an Opinion detailing the unconstitutionality of Shays-Meehan. 2) President Bush states flatly that the law is uncontitutional, but then signs it to force a judicial review. 3) Solicitor General Olson is directed not only to oppose the law, rather than support it (the usual role of the SG), but to file suit immediately for a preliminary injunction against any use of the law, by anyone, anywhere, until the Supreme Court ruled on it.
No reason to go into the details of the plan (which I got to read), because obviously the White House decided on a different course of action. The plan did offer a chance at getting the final Supreme Court decision BEFORE the November elections.
As it is, the case will be filed 6 November, 2002, on the effective date of the law. The final decision of the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, will come in may, 2003, give or take a few weeks.
The only guarantee I can offer is this: If we do not get this law declared unconstitutional, I will resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. I feel that strongly about the issue, and about our odds of success.
FReepers, including you, my friend, have done all that you could, and your efforts have not been enough. Now it is time for the First Amendment attorneys to go to war. This will be my 17th and second most important brief in that Court. (Most important was the brief on the Bush case from Florida.)
I presume you wish me good hunting.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "The Truman Factor."
To: JohnHuang2
Well written as usual. Every single legislator that voted for CFR violated his or her oath of office. Period. If Bush signs it, he will have violated his oath of office as well. The oath of office is part of the rule of law. Ignoring it makes Bush and the idiots we elected no better than Clinton, regardless of what the Supreme Court does.
To: JohnHuang2
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.Methinks our congresscritters are eliminating one right at a time. Heck, they have been attacking the 2nd and 10th amendments since the 60's.
Oh, btw, good morning guy.
5.56mm
11
posted on
03/21/2002 4:14:18 AM PST
by
M Kehoe
To: ModernDayCato
"Every single legislator that voted for CFR violated his or her oath of office. Period. If Bush signs it, he will have violated his oath of office as well. The oath of office is part of the rule of law. Ignoring it makes Bush and the idiots we elected no better than Clinton, regardless of what the Supreme Court does."Exactly correct! I ASSURE you that I will NOT let this fact go unnoticed!
12
posted on
03/21/2002 4:16:12 AM PST
by
Bigun
To: JohnHuang2
Usually I agree w/ your always well written commentaries, however, this time I can't.
This "reform" is so blatantly unconstitutional and so potentially damaging to the republic, that for W to sign it would be a violation of his oath to protect the constitution. Furthermore, political trigonometry aside, it is a violation of his own campaign promise NOT to sign it.
If W has 1% of integrity/backbone he'll veto this piece of crap the minute it clears the senate. To wait for the supremes to do his job is courting disaster.
Mark my words friend, the supremes will not flush this thing in toto, but will pick and choose what stays and what goes. That will require compromise and many loathsome provisions will become unremovable constitutional law.
The only answer is a principled veto.
13
posted on
03/21/2002 4:16:54 AM PST
by
Pietro
To: ABG(anybody but Gore), Congressman BillyBob, ALL
PING for incoming info from Congressman BillyBob (post #9)
To: Congressman Billybob
I presume you wish me good hunting.Indeed! We wish you EVERY success in this matter but your, and others efforts in the courts, in NO way addresses the FACT that we have currently, at least 240 Congressmen, 60 Senators, and a President who either DO NOT UNDERSTAND the Constitution and their oaths of office or just don't GIVE A DAMN about either!
15
posted on
03/21/2002 4:25:32 AM PST
by
Bigun
To: Congressman Billybob
Well, I wish you good hunting. It is hard to see that the Bush administration will challenge this given the rhetoric they have used. I can't reconcile the fact the president stated that there are Constitutional issues but he will sign it. Unless of course they do have a plan to challenge it. That would certainly put a stake in it if it goes to the Supreme Court immediately. There is a steep political cost to Bush if he just signs and accepts this bill. Conservatives get mad when a politician abandons principle, liberals get mad when a politician takes goodies away. People do not care about not having CFR, but they care very much about having it. The polls that show this is not a big issue do not address that side of the equation. Bush will pay a big price for signing if he does not have a plan to deal with the "Constitutional Issues."
regards
16
posted on
03/21/2002 4:25:58 AM PST
by
okiedust
To: JohnHuang2
Excellent article, John! Once again, you prove to be the voice of reason.
17
posted on
03/21/2002 4:27:02 AM PST
by
rintense
To: JohnHuang2
JohnHuang2 is making lots of sense here but im afraid his theory is not good enough. Bush took an oath. And he openly suggested that there is an infrigement on the 1st ammendment. Knowing that he realizes this and STILL intends to sign it is a broken oath.
I expect this from a Clinton, not Bush. Im disappointed at Bushs decision from a Constitutional standpoint, but I see JohnHuang2 sees that signing it could virtually kill CFR from here on out. I like Rush's idea and that is the only reform i would sign up for.
18
posted on
03/21/2002 4:29:06 AM PST
by
smith288
To: JohnHuang2
Good post John, as usual. I've been thinking about this legislation and why Bush would sign it even though he knows its unconstitutional. Before I get flammed out of existence, I'm just theorizing here, I don't like the bill either. What if they sign this bill, it goes to the Supreme Court and it's thrown out as unconstitutional, then once and for all it's done. It's a way to end 7 years of this nonsense and get McCain off his high horse. Just a thought.
To: Bigun
It's obvious to me that Bush is taking a calculated risk in pissing off conservatives. After all, 'who else are we going to vote for?'
If I had known that he would repeatedly betray the principles he supposedly holds so dear, then turn his back on the Constitution I would not have frozen my ass off after election 2000 protesting Sore Loserman.
I believe we were insisting that the rule of law be applied. What a waste of time. Please...no bulls--t that Gore would have been worse.
There is nothing worse than pissing on the Constitution.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson