Posted on 03/22/2002 1:48:12 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Second, Bush has been very quiet on this issue. He could have been making a case that the provisions of this bill are an infringement on our freedom of speech. It’s bizarre when free speech is defined as the right of a woman to dance nude in a bar, but not for citizens to speak publicly about a candidate within 60 days of an election.
If Bush had been vocal about your scenario, I would give it more weight. Your analysis is persuasive. And for those of us who are Bush supporters, we would like to think that you have captured his motivation. However, I remain unpersuaded.
You write great essays. Do you do it for a living?
AMEN!!!
Do you do it for a living?
No, but thank you very much for the implicit compliment in your asking.
I'm just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill, highly-opinionated, ranting Freeper =^)
This is a cop-out. If it comes back every year, Bush should veto it every year, and use every opportunity to speak against it so that it eventually becomes a political non-starter.
The time to rely on the Supreme Court will be down the road, when a RAT is in the White House, and then we can hope the court will do the right thing as a last resort. But to use that strategy now is dangerous and cowardly.
Bush really needs to veto this bill. If he doesn't then I will never forgive him for supporting such a blatant assault on MY Constitutional rights. There is NO excuse.
The problem is there are multiple interpretations of "correctly". The only ones that count hold seats on USSC.
Actually, I believe that I read that there are aspects of this bill which the SCOTUS has already declared unconstitutional. The precedent hasn't prevented the Clymers in the legislature from trying it again.
In addition, however, there are parts of this bill which probably are constitutional, although repugnant to liberty and commonsense. Since the House, in its infinite wisdom, refused Armey's amendment to declare the entire bill void if any part is void, we are definitely having CFR in some form shoved down our throats.
The sad part is that the American people haven't raised a ruckus over this. I wonder how much it would cost to have a giant red gag installed in the mouth of the Statue of Liberty.....
What a wonderful plan to elect a democratic president in 2004. That'll show 'em right? This is the same argument that gave us eight years of Clinton instead of re-electing Bush. Didn't you learn anything from that?
And, no, I'm not wrong. If USSC rules as most here think it will, then that ruling will strengthen the hand of those who've argued it to be unconstitutional making it even more difficult to pass again. The unconstitutional provisions will not be back.
Look at this way. The democrats have passed their bill. They look forward to a Bush veto as an election issue. This is ground of their choosing. Basic military strategy holds that is far better to fight on ground of your own choosing than on ground chosen by your enemy. A Bush veto is the military equivalent of walking into an enemy ambush just to show the enemy you're not afraid. Why do that when you can call in the heavy artillery, ie, USSC, and blast their positions without exposing yourself to their pre-planned fires?
Well spoken. But the only one who can say whether a law is constitutional, and make it stick, is USSC.
"I do not trust that the SC will rule either way on this. The supreme court does have a History of ruling against the Constitution, (Roe vs. Wade, New Deal policies) and could easily do so again."
You cannot have it both ways. The more one argues that this bill is unconstitutional, the more that person undermines the argument against taking it to USSC for a determination.
"I think you are sacrificing political expediency for political courage and, just as his father did, George Bush leans toward the expedient."
It is easy to believe one is courageous when one is being stupid. See my military analogy upthread. (Post #30)
I just wish conservatives would step back for a minute and examine the damage this bill has caused us. The democrats have driven a wedge into the conservative base. They have placed conservatives on the "horns of a dilema" to use Liddell Hart's words. We can either take a lambasting in the media by vetoing this bill or we can alienate a significant number of conservatives (actually, I have doubts that most who claim they'll never vote for Bush again ever voted for Bush in the first place). There is a way out of this. Sign it and kill it in USSC.
It is YOUR duty to protect this document. Tell Bush to veto it. Don't rely on the geezer gods to protect you. They gave you Roe v. Wade. They can abort the constitution too.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
It sounds as if you will comply with whatever ruling they give on any issue. I may not.
If the SC says I cannot carry a Bible in public, I will begin doing so that very day.
If the SC says that I cannot speak against the government, it becomes my DUTY to do exactly that.
What will you do if the SC says that the Second Amendment is only for the National Guard and individuals have no right to arms?
There is nothing in the Constituion that I know of that requires loyalty to the Supreme Court and their rulings if those rulings are contrary to the Constituion. The Court is not omnipotnet or infallible. Many very important decisions came with a one vote margin demonstating that the issues are not even totally clear to the justices.
Each of us has a duty to protect freedom.
If you are willing to leave the fighting up to the whims of 9 robed bozos, then you deserve to have your liberty stripped from you.
Look, this isn't a perfect world. The democrats (with significant help from the likes of McCain) have laid a nice trap here. There are valid arguments for a veto and there are valid arguements against. One must weight the risks, the advantages, and the disadvantages of each course of action. I happen to believe taking the issue to USSC is the least risky since it probably kills CFR without walking into this trap.
My real concern is that conservatives will not see this trap and make their continued support of Bush contingent upon his veto. That really plays into the democrats hands.
The issue here is not USSC but a congress acting in an unconstitutional manner. Such a "runaway" congress can only be contained by the other two branches acting in concert. The constitutional way to kill this CFR is to sign it into law and get it into the courts where it can be resolved. That's the way the constitution works.
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.