[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, March 21, 2002

Quote of the Day by goldstategop

[Illbay]

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.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

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.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

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.

[ModernDayCato]

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.

[M Kehoe]

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

[Pietro]

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.

[rintense]

Excellent article, John! Once again, you prove to be the voice of reason.

[smith288]

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.

[KansasConservative]

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.

[Piquaboy]

I do not go along with the reasoning that some of the senators signed this bill so it could be struck down by the Supreme Court to save face. They still violated their oath of office and should be remembered for what they did.

[hchutch]

Agreed. The fact is that SCOTUS can kill this thing permanently. And to be honest, the vote margins were declining for our side.

Bush set this up to be killed permanently. We may never have to fight this battle again. Sometimes the aggressive, in-your-face way is not the best way.

I will remind everyone about the parable of the old bull and the young bull for the umpteenth time. The President has shown that he knows the lesson it teaches. Things will work out in the long run. Let's have some faith on this, shall we? Nobody has said DOJ was going to defend this manure pile, in whole or in part, and the statement leaves lots of room for Olson to maneuver.

Patience is a virtue. Those who would stifle us are patient. Now we need to be patient and see what happens.

[Caipirabob]

Thanks again for the great work, JohnHuang2!

I'll simply add one thought to close on why Bush won't have too much to fear with losing his base prior to 2004:

President Hillary Clinton.

[anniegetyourgun]

I recall a similar gamble taken on the line item veto a few years back.

Seems lots of Freepers have decided to take a pass (opt out) in 2004 over this one. If his favorables stay high, we can afford their pout. If not and we are again in a tight race, we'll get a Dem and they'll all be smug about having "sent a message" which is more important to them than winning. After all, it worked with George H. W. Walker Bush and we got 8 years of Clinton. It can easily happen again.

[Fred Mertz]

Well written essay, John. Dear Lord, I hope you're correct.

[eureka!]

Upon reflection, I look at it this way: unconstitutional laws, or laws with unconstitutional provisions, are enacted every day. Indeed, I wouldn't be suprised if W has signed some already, fully aware of potential constitutional infirmities. That is the role of the courts to decide. While I share the firm belief by many that W should veto this piece of cr*p for what it is, I can understand that politics too have to be played and some capital spent. As such, I don't much see it as a betrayal of anything. It is the way the system works and W is not superman nor a conservative saviour, he cannot change that system to everyone's liking. He can, however, chip away at it, and this I think he is doing the best way he thinks he can. Incrementalism works both ways. As to those here who scream "liar" and "traitor", this is exactly what the 'Rats want. Don't give it to them....

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent article, John.

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.

It makes sense. I just pray this would happen.

[Aric2000]

Sorry John, on this one I am with the constitution, that document comes first, ALWAYS. The congresscritters, senators who voted for it and the president, if he signs it, will be in violations of thier oath of office. This piece of tripe should never have made it to the floor, let alone the desk of the president.

He showed a list of provisions that he would sign in a CFR package, and NOT ONE of those provisions are in this, as well as the fact it is SO obviously unconstitutional that it is unreal.

If Bush signs this, he will have proven to me that his oath MEANS NOTHING, therefore his word means nothing.

The constitution is there for a reason, there are enough questionable laws right now, let alone a blatant attack on the first amendment. He needs to veto this BAD PIECE OF legislation, or I will NOT vote for him again. And if the Pubbies lose power, well, sorry charlie, you break your oath, YOU'RE GONE!!! If I have to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE", I will, but NONE of my congresscritters who voted yes will get my vote, and any person who runs against them WILL get my vote.

[eeriegeno]

When the oath, "Do you swear that you will tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is taken before a court of law, if that oath is broken perjury is committed.

When the oath, "Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America....", if that oath is broken no violation of law occurs????

Why do we waste time with these silly 'oaths of office'??? Seems to me that Constitutional questions on CFR should have been answered in committee, not at the President's desk (or SCOTUS). If these lawmakers are that daft, the house needs cleaned my friends.......

[dittomom]

Great stuff, John. I agree with your bottom line, Bush is not a coward. He is not a liar either, as some folks want to call him. At one time, he probably thought as I did that the Dems would never actually go through with it. But now they have and he's not going to waste his time arguing with them when the courts can smack this badboy down. Personally, I would have preferred a nice public speech declaring why he cannot in good conscience sign this garbage - but like you say, the people don't have this on their radar screen. Sure McCain and friends will come back and try again - I say, let 'em.

Maybe next time the voters will finally wake up and see that their so-called representatives are merely fiddling around with UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation designed to keep their sorry-behinds in office. Meanwhile, the President is trying to fight terrorists, cut our taxes, etc - things the people actually care about.

That's where the likes of Free Republic comes in. We've gotta pump up the volume and expose those who would vote for "The Incumbent Security Act" for what they are.

To name a few...

41 RINOS AGAINST FREE SPEECH - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

"Republicans" who voted Y for passage, by state:

CA: Bono, Horn, Ose
CT: Johnson, Shays, Simmons
DE: Castle
FL: Foley, Ros-Lehtinen
IL: Johnson, Kirk
IA: Ganske, Leach
MD: Gilchrest, Morella
MI: Smith, Upton
MN: Ramstad
NE: Bereuter, Osborne
NH: Bass
NJ: Ferguson, Frelinghuysen, LoBiondo
NY: Boehlert, Gilman, Quinn, Walsh, Grucci, Houghton, McHugh
OH: LaTourette
PA: Greenwood, Weldon, Platts
SC: Graham
SD: Thune
TN: Wamp
VA: Wolf
WV: Capito
WI: Petri

11 RINOS AGAINST FREE SPEECH - SENATE

Lincoln Chafee of R.I.
Thad Cochran of Miss.
Susan Collins of Maine
Pete Domenici of N.M.
Peter Fitzgerald of Ill.
Richard Lugar of Ind.
John McCain of Ariz.
Olympia Snowe of Maine
Arlen Specter of Pa.
Fred Thompson of Tenn.
and John Warner of Va