Replies

Hmmm. I haven't read all of it yet, but since much of it is not as big a deal as has been shouted about, McConnell has a good team to argue before SCOTUS, and McConnell i NOT mad at President Bush, I believe there is some strategery going on here.

I have puzzled over something that seemed so unlikely a position for President Bush to take. He has always been committed to building the party, he remembers what happened to his dad, and he tries to do the right thing for the country.

Here is GraniteStateConservative's post from early this morning (in reponse to a complaint by a poster that the SC was not the sole arbiter of constitutionality):

Well, if you live in the country, you don't really have a choice. The SCOTUS is the only constitutionally empowered branch to adjudicate. Bush has to execute laws-- even if he disagrees with them or their constitutionality. The only branch the public respects on adjudication is the SCOTUS. Would you believe Clintoon or Al Gore or Tom Daschle if they declared legislation constitutional? Of course not, and neither would most Americans.

This bill has been around for like 8 years. It is not going any where. If Bush vetoed it, the Democrats and McCain would spend the next months up to November talking about how that politicians who are pupperts of corporate interests (Bush, Senate and House GOPers who voted against it) don't want the legislation. They wouldn't try to fix the bill. They want this as an issue more than anything.

Imagine if this November, the midterms go as they have historically for the past 70 years (except for a year of FDR's and Clintoon's administration) and both the House and Senate go Democrat. Imagine if Gore wins the electoral vote and not just the popular vote in 2004. These aren't far-fetched. Gore would sign this law in Feb. of 2005 and we'd be right where we are now-- with the SCOTUS having to kill this. The GOP wanted line item veto, but SCOTUS killed it (do you hear people campaign on line item veto anymore?). The SCOTUS killed separate, but equal, they killed gun-free school zones in 1995. A President can't kill an issue and Congress can't. Only SCOTUS.

McCain is going to have a legacy of authoring partially unconstitutional legislation. Bush in his statement on the bill said that he thinks there are questions of constitutionality on this that SCOTUS has to rule on.

525 posted on 3/22/02 3:48 AM Pacific by GraniteStateConservative

This makes as much sense to me as anything I have read. What do you think?

That makes a lot of sense and is true that once a bill is passed by the Congress and is enacted it is constitutional until the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. I haven't went and looked up the SCOTUS decision in 1976 regarding Buckley v. Valeo but that will give a lot of weight I think to somethings contained in this bill assuming they follow precedent.

Nothing is changing until the 04 cycle anyway which will begin basically on Nov. 6, 02. I do like the upping of hard money limits.

I am really starting to moderate on this issue, big time. The other day it really seemed like the end of the world but now I think the GOP will still manage to come out on top. I am NOT saying i am pleased with Bush on this...i am still deeply disappointed. But it may not cost him my vote....especially is hillary is running. We will see what he does....I have been hopeful by what he says about tax reform for one thing. Do I support the destruction of my free speech........of course not. I still want Bush to refuse to enforce this portion and also sue to force other parts of the govt. to not enforce it as well. I still would prefer a veto, but maybe he can do it in a different way and still take the high ground. I will be disappointed if he just signs it and then supports the ad provision. But, I believe he has decided to sign this for a higher reason. EVen still, it does greatly bother me that he would abdicate his Constitutional responsibility. I hope he will veto still.