Bush s Broken Promise

National Review ^ | February 21, 2002 | Rich Lowery

[diotima]

I thought the conservative line WAS upholding the constitution. That Bush will sign something so unconstitutional, I find highly alarming. Everyone has their "pet" issues on which Bush may/may not let them down. I think he has the popularity now where he should veto the bill.

I am not going to say that "I will never vote for him" because of this, however, I do find it alarming that he would support something so unconstitutional.

[Reagan Man]

So if one side wants the abolition of the Bill of Rights, and the other side doesn't, it becomes "pragmatic" politics to concede the overturning of one amendment every few years, in the interest of "compromise"?
I see.

You see what you want to see. Your analogy is ridiculous.

I see, you're politically naive too.

Jeers.

[Dales]

lol.

I told you I was hot about this.

Maybe I just need to vent.

[mommadooo3]

What's that old saying...something about the value of a man is equal to the worth of his word? You'd think Bush would 'know better' since he's claimed to be a God-fearing man. Once a person starts compromising on doing what's right, it's a slippery slope downhill to hell, from thereon in. (I think it's called 'searing one's conscience', in the Bible)

[Dales]

Are we agreeing or disagreeing? lol

Upholding the Constitution is part of the conservative line.

A pretty damned important part. Hence, the position I have been taking this entire thread.

[deport]

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions.

Now just where does he say it is unconstitutional? He says it presents some constitutional questions.... a lot different. If it's unconstitutional then let the courts make that determination, not one person sitting in the office. Apparently 2/3rds of our system of Government will have enacted this legislation.. Now let the Judicial do it's part and then our system has functioned as a whole as it should.

[Lazamataz]

You see what you want to see. Your analogy is ridiculous.

It is not at all ridiculous. Compromising is losing us ground, and that is what my allegorical illustration is meant to illustrate.

Your blind fealty to a party or a man is reminiscient of the 'useful idiots' that got communism and fascism established in many countries.

[diotima]

I thought we were agreeing....do you disagree with my assessment of our agreeing?

;^)

[AmishDude]

Because if two men burglarize my house, I want them BOTH prosecuted.

Perhaps an obscure reference, but: You are advocating death for Dr. Mudd and are willing to let John Wilkes Booth go free.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

Hello mommadooo3! It's great to see you!

Thanks for the bump. I'll be back later after an appointment to finish this thread.

[Lazamataz]

Now just where does he say it is unconstitutional?

His aides and backdoor policy people have let it be known. He is probably not on record as saying it is unconstitutional himself, since if he signs it having acknowledged its unconstitutionality, there is a real -- if small --danger of impeachment proceedings beginning.

[Lazamataz]

Perhaps an obscure reference, but: You are advocating death for Dr. Mudd and are willing to let John Wilkes Booth go free.

Incorrect. I am advocating long and harsh prison sentences for them both.

[deport]

You missed this phrase I think.

Nope caught it as written... thanks

[rdavis84]

;-)

[Reagan Man]

Your blind fealty to a party or a man is reminiscient of the 'useful idiots' that got communism and fascism established in many countries.

Blind fealty! LMAO. Ad hominem attacks, the last refuge of a loser. Laz, you've proved yourself a scoundrel.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions.

Now just where does he say it is unconstitutional? He says it presents some constitutional questions.... a lot different.

Good catch, but if he is uncertain about the constitutionality, how is he upholding the constitution by signing it?

[AmishDude]

Your blind fealty to a party or a man is reminiscient of the 'useful idiots' that got communism and fascism established in many countries.

Or perhaps a man who stays married to his wife even though she may have had an indiscretion.

[Dales]

Deport- I much prefer arguing on the same side as you. This sucks.

But here is how I think it is supposed to work, as compared to how it has worked here.

I think Congress should not pass bills if there are questions as to the Constitutionality. If the Constitutionality is questionable, they should not pass it.

Here, there are Constitutional questions, and they passed it saying that the Courts will vet it. They even put in provisions to get it to the Supreme Court as fast as possible.

I think that the President should not sign bills if there are questions as to the Constitutionality. If the Constitutionality is questionable, he should veto it and tell Congress to fix the bill.

Here, he is signing it while openly admitting that there are Constitutional questions with the bill.

Then the Supreme Court should strike down any unconstitutional bills enacted. We will see what they will do.

With both the Congress and with the President, the people have a responsibility of holding them accountable when they are not upholding the Constitution. If I am unwilling to hold the President accountable when he does not uphold the Constitution as he was sworn to do, then I am doing the very thing that I am upset with him for doing- namely not doing my part and hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing.

The Constitution and its principles should be defended in depth, by the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the people.

I feel I have a duty to let Bush know, just as I am letting Specter know, and just as I would be letting any Democrat know, that I won't accept them playing politics over things such as the first amendment.

I am hoping and praying for some sort of miracle here.

[Dales]

Serves me right for butting in :-)

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

bump and bbl.