[JohnHuang2]

Friday, March 22, 2002

Quote of the Day by William Wallace 3/22/02

[DugwayDuke]

Of course, the real question is what is the best way to proceed with preserving and protecting the Constitution. Face it folks, if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next. Regardless of how one views the role of the legislative and executive branches, only USSC can rule on the constitutionality of a law and make it stick. The only way to kill this vampire of a bill is to drive a stake through its heart and only USSC can do that. If the objective is to kill CFR, then the best path forward is to sign the thing and get it in front of USSC as soon as possible.

The more one opposes this bill on constitutional grounds the more one should support this course of action. If you really believe CFR is unconstitutional, then one should not fear taking this to the courts. A Bush veto does not kill CFR and only prolongs the debate while providing democrats with an issue to bear republicans with. Sign it and kill it in court.

[meenie]

Bush would be regarded a lot better if he would grab the veto pen and stand on the principle that this is unconstitutional. Instead he and the Congress are relying on the courts to clean up this mess. Nobody loves cowards!

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

"But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution."

Er, David... I'm surprised your editor didn't catch this. Don't you remember the campaign? Bush blew a lot of hot air about his oath to "restore honor and dignity" but avoided mentioning the Constitution when describing that oath. Bush doesn't care about the Constitution. Take his steel tariff for example. Article I, sections 7&8 are very clear regarding taxation. Taxation of any kind is always supposed to originate within the House of Representatives, not the Executive Branch. And that's just ONE example of Emperor Junior's contempt for Constitutional principles.

The Republican Party does not hold itself out as the guardian of the Constitution. Rare is the occasion they even mention the document anymore.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

As a practical matter, if legislators and presidents were to act in total disregard of the Constitution anytime they pleased, there wouldn't be enough courts to stop them – assuming they would anyway.

This is what makes a banana republic a banana republic. And this is what we are becoming -- with our president as top banana.

[Bigun]

What right do the Congress and the president have to ignore their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?

Now THAT is a DAMN good question!!!

[Bigun]

"it is apparent that the Framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of the courts, as well as for the legislature."

AMEN!!!

[DreamWeaver]

Sorry, but McCain is a traitor IMO in more ways than one. According to many Vets they too have their own opinion on McCain that you will not hear from our mainstream media.

I cannot provide the link but here is the URL...Read all about it ( McCain) from the Veterans Dispatch and their opinion on him........

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm

[Jethro Tull]

"But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution."

Excuse Mr. Limbaugh.

Where was the RP and their defense of the Constitution when both you and your brother Rusty pushed for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO?

Incidentally, all of the above violate Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of our Constitution.

Hypocrite...

[freeeee]

But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution.

BWAAAHahahahahaHA LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got any other nifty one-liners?

[deadrock]

"Abdicate their responsibilities" is the exact phrase I used yesterday. I'm deeply disturbed by W's flip-flop. Read my lips - no new taxes is so minor compared to this about face veto.

[1Old Pro]

I agree with this article and opinion. The same thing is occuring with the 2nd amendment.

[Countyline]

"What right do the Congress and the president have to ignore their oaths to support and defend the Constitution? What right do they have to abdicate their responsibilities to ensure that unconstitutional legislation does not become law? What right do they have to shirk their duties and confer on the Supreme Court the sole duty to uphold the Constitution?

Did you know that the text of the Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the exclusive right to pass on constitutional questions? When Justice Marshall proclaimed the Court's power to declare acts of the legislative and executive branches unconstitutional in the 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison, he wasn't relying on any specific constitutional provision."

______________________________________________________________

As always ... they do it because "it works". The Constitution does not condone abortion or gun control either, or income tax, welfare programs, federal control of education, etc. It is the same old story. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. In the meantime use diversion, devisive propaganda, media hype, and impugn the motives of the objectors, etc. Sickening but true.

A devise or method found "to work" will be used ceaselessly until a staunch defense is found that will stop it cold.

Until then ... rave on...

[lavaroise]

To them, the end apparently justifies the means, even if the means involves denigrating the Constitution.

No, to them an evil end can be justified by a legislative pseudo-legitimate "peaceful" mean.

[lavaroise]

Limbaugh is absolutely right that relying on the supreme courts to have a constitutional way of life is patent lack of leadership, dangerous weakness and executive shyness that we do not need in this time of terrorism.

[Political Junkie Too]

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

There are three co-equal branches of government. The people own the Constitution.

-PJ