Posted on 03/24/2002 8:22:33 PM PST by kristinn
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Washington Post reported today that President joked about signing the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed by the Senate last week.
Bush, in a statement issued Wednesday night, had expressed misgivings about whether parts of the bill were constitutional but said that he would sign the bill anyway.
His decision to sign the bill has kicked up a firestorm of dissent in the conservative community, including a scathing editorial by The Washington Times and a letter from the American Conservative Union signed by 60 conservative leaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I hope you are correct. But, remember.. If I could see into the future I could make a killing on Wall Street.
ROFL!
Sure, so the incumbents are further insulated from people like me voicing my opinion and grievances in public media? Sure, that's fair.
You say this like it's no big deal.
What right does anyone have to tell me I can't voice my political views on a timeslot I bought and paid for?
The media can do it, they can talk till they are blue in the face.. But when I want a little time and want to pay for it I can't? The NRA can't? We aren't allowed to mention a Candidate by name because it's "corrupting" the political process? I don't have a right to have my grievances redressed? I don't have a right to speek on my own TV ad but I can distribute fliers 24x7 saying the exact same thing?
Dave, this is all about shutting me up, looking good for the media and protecting incumbents.
Also, the brunt of the blame here should go to the House. They shot Dick Armey right out of the sky on his "Constitutionality clause" that he wanted to add to this bill. Incase you haven't heard it was very simple, it stated that "No part of this bill may violate the US Constitution"
And they voted it DOWN.
I don't disagree at all. However, when most legislation is passed out of congress with the majority required, by definition, they have said it is constitutional. This one is strange in that even those that sponsor it and those that voted on it democrat and republican concede that parts of the bill are likely unconstitutional. The CFR that has been in place has heavily favored the democrats and their cash cows the unions. Now why did they pass a bill that all of a sudden dries up their advantage in soft money and expands the GOP advantage in hard money. Then you have to ask why did they place so many poison pills in it. I believe that the politico's in the Whitehouse smell veto bait. Bush veto’s, the old CFR stays in place and in 2002 the issue is Bush's veto of CFR. In other words "don't throw me in the briar patch". Now is that me claiming that this is a grand strategy on the part of Bush? No it is me and if I could think of it, then anyone could think of it why not the Bush team?
The person in charge of vetting the constitutional soundness of all legislation that reaches his desk. Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Dream on...
Which is unconstitutional
There are some folk who honestly believe that this doesn't infringe on individual rights and their free speech. It is unfortunate and definately bad timing and judgment that President would joke about this, but from what I saw during the press conference he seemed to be peeved that he would be questioned about it during his press conference in Peru. That's no excuse of course but it is a consideration.
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) -
President Bush (news - web sites) said on Sunday he would sign landmark campaign finance reform legislation with only a slight hesitation, reflecting his ongoing concerns about the measure.
"I won't hesitate" signing it, Bush said at a joint news conference with Salvadoran President Francisco Flores as the president wrapped up a four-day trip to Latin America. "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."
The legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics won final congressional approval last week, and Bush has pledged to sign it soon.
The bill would ban unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties, limit such donations to state and local parties and restrict broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections.
Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life resulted in the president's impeachment in 1998, is to lead a legal challenge that will seek to knock down most of the measure as unconstitutional.
Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.
"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.
Bush said that nonetheless the "bill is a better bill than the current system," but that some parts of it might not stand up to a court challenge.
Let's use your implied definition of what the "oath of office" entails and apply it to a few things and see if President Jhoffa is violating his oath of office if he does not issue and EO overturning or refusing to enforce the following "unconstitutional" laws on the books
Roe v. Wade
The Brady Bill
Nafta
The war on drugs
The CFR that the new one replaces
Flag burning as political speech
If the president violates his oath by passing laws he has constitutional reservations with, is he not violating his oath when he enforces laws that large segments and even he feels are equally unconstitutional?
Honestly.. I think I have heard it all now. Even Clinton never had such dedicated and blind shills.
Some of my favorites:
"But, there's a war on and if you are critical of anything the administration does then that's anti-American and you are a bad person for thinking it. Now get in lockstep with the rest of us or shut up."
"He can't veto it, doncha see.. Political heat trumps the Constitution when it comes to bad press"
"Dubya is a mastermind. Signing UnConstitutional Laws is just another masterstroke to help us defeat the dems!"
"How do you know it's UnConstitutional anyway, who are you the Supreme Court? I mean just because lawmakers are saying it themselves and they voted Armey's "Constitutionality clause" down doesn't mean a thing."
"But, the Supreme Court will toss it right out.. Probably kill the Brady Bill while they are at it, so stop whining already"
"Why should you care? It's only the First Amendment, and you don't buy commercials anyway.. Do you?"
"But, but.. it's "stealing" issues from the Democrats. If we take all of their ideas and enact them into law then they won't have a thing to run on.. It's simple!"
Give me a break. your excuses get lamer and lamer.
A minute ago you called this another Bush master stroke.
God, is there no depth to which you won't sink?
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.