[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.

[JohnHuang2]

Yesterday, I wrote this essay:

Shays-Meehan = Big Government
by JohnHuang2
March 21, 2002

The Shays-Meehan bill, which cleared the Senate yesterday on a 60-40 vote, would, if signed, constitute the most breathtaking expansion of federal power in decades.

The legislation, euphemistically called "Campaign finance reform," is big government writ large. It reads like a wish-list for bullyragging bureaucratic thugs hell-bent on riding roughshod over citizens and the U.S. Constitution.

And for shady, venal-minded, crooked incumbents in Washington, well, Shays-Meehan is nothing short of a dream-come-true.

Imagine you're a Senator for a moment.

Don't like the notion of citizen advocacy groups taking you to task in TV ads for this or that vote, particularly so close to election day? Don't worry, relax: Campaign finance "reform" comes to the rescue!

Under provisions of Shays-Meehan, broadcast ads by pesky outside groups would be strictly forbidden 60 days before a general election (30 days before a primary). Yes, your troubles are over, dear Senator incumbent.

Groups like the NRA and National Right To Life Committee would be gagged and muffled just as election day looms and voters start paying attention. And -- here's the best part: You're free to swarm the airwaves with gazillions of ads extolling your brilliant Senate record -- all the while smearing your silenced opponents! Dream come true? You bet. If you're an incumbent, that is.

For John or Jane Q. Public, however, this bill could be a nightmare.

Imagine the plethora of potential abuse by FEC pinheads charged with enforcing this misbegotten, draconian rot-gut. Busy-bee bureaucrats, lest we forget, will be writing the labyrinth of regulatory do(s) and don't(s), after all. For citizens wishing to exercise first amendment rights, better hire a lawyer first -- this tangled mishmash maze of legal gallimaufry could land you in the pokey. And saddle you with hefty fines, to boot. Ask the Christian Coalition.

With Shays-Meehan, the era of big government will be back -- with a vengeance. Its administration will require an unconscionable transfer of power from citizens and states to federal Washington. Agencies such as the FEC, under this measure, will mushroom into unyielding monoliths, inexorably.

Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

Yet, in assembling their mammoth shrine to leviathan government, "reformers" have overplayed their hand. Shays-Meehan contains the seeds of its own demise -- at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So many of its fallacious provisions are so flagrantly unconstitutional -- so 'in-your-face -- the Supremes are likely to toss the whole thing in the ash-heap, in a New York minute.

The ash heap is, after all, the fate that awaits all such unlawful encroachments on our constitutional liberties.

That said, let me dispel a popular myth over why Bush intends to sign it.

Myth: Bush is a coward. He's afraid that a veto will spark a withering media/McCaniac firestorm, and a backlash from voters -- one which will cost him 15-20% points or more in popularity.

Fact: Outside the beltway, no one gives a rat's rump for Campaign finance "reform." Typically, this issue barely registers in surveys -- 2% at most. With public attention focused so intently on the war, Bush could veto this easily with minimal downside risk. And he knows it.

Bottom line: The 'Bush is a coward' theory doesn't wash.

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.

You may agree or disagree with this strategy -- I would much prefer a veto -- but to call the President a sniveling coward strikes me as hokum.

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001

[jwalsh07]

Bush should not put pen to this, period. It is his "read my lips". MArl my words, thr mrdia who are exempted from this onerpous bill will hang this around his neck like a millstone. There are other ways to get it to the courts.

[VA Advogado]

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.

Finally, a breath of fresh air and common sense. I wish you could get in the face of some of our more ignorant libertarian friends and explain to them too how the constitution works.

[Buffalo Bob]

If you really believe CFR is unconstitutional, then one should not fear taking this to the courts.

To the same court that once decided that a Black was 3/5 (or was it 2/5) of a person?
The same court that made Infantcide legal?
The same court that let the Brady Bill stand unopposed?

That court?

[steve-b]

If you really believe CFR is unconstitutional, then one should not fear taking this to the courts.

The issue is whether or not CFR conflicts with the Constitution, not whether or not it conflicts with the penumbrae, emanations, and other tea leaves which are read by the courts in place of the Constitution.

[Maelstrom]

Actually, you're wrong.

If Bush signs it and it does, through the efforts of concerned citizens and millions of dollars, make it to a court that finds it Unconstitutional, this has no greater effect than Bush vetoing it in the first place...because EVEN THEN it will find it's way into Congress year after year after year.

That's what THIS thing is in the first place. The correct way to go about this is to tar and feather ANYONE who votes for it or signs onto it, and turn the tyrants out on their ear while a non-violent political solution is still available and effective.

[Maceman]

Face it folks, if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next.

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.

[otterpond]

The only way to kill this vampire of a bill is to drive a stake through its heart and only USSC can do that.

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.....

[Khepera]

If the courts were not so damn liberal then this would be a good argument. Until there are some conservatives on the Supreme Court then we are screwed. As you know being conservative or even having a brain at all disqualifies any nomination to the highest court below God. A deity that if you believe in also disqualifies you from being on the SCOTUS.

[SuziQ]

Face it folks, if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next.

You're right about that. The libs are nothing if not persistent. They win by wearing people down and causing them to finally give in just to get them off their backs! I just wish I had enough faith in the Supremes at this point to KNOW for sure they'd strike CFR down!

But this gives us OUR marching orders, doesn't it? We need to get our there and work HARD to get some more conservative Republicans in the Senate!! I'd hesitate before voting for a moderate unless there were no choice between that person and a Democrat. WE need to regain control of the Senate so the 'Pickering' debacle is not repeated when Dubya goes to appoint a new Supreme!