Posted on 03/25/2002 4:50:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:05:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
LONGTIME Republican political strategist Rich Galen likens money in politics to water in the ocean: "You can put up dams all you want. Nothing will change the amount; you can only move it around."
That's Galen's reaction to the passage - and expected enactment - of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Dude, I expect this from them. I expect it from Feingold (He probably thinks he's doing the country a great service. He probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy..)
It doesn't hurt as bad when the opposition does something stupid.
But this is acoordinated effort involving both houses of Congress and (probably, if he signs it) the President.
So, it hurts allot worse. It's much more upsetting because of that.
Bump!
I mean, talk about adding insult to injury.
That was just wrong. Even if you do support CFR and believe it to be Constitutional and an all round good thing, there is just no justification for that.
Thank you for making my point. We are constantly expecting the Republicans to be in the role of the parent who takes away the candy. Every time. The Democrats never have to grow up. They get to act like children because they have no scruples. Well, you know what happens when children get power.
So, it hurts allot worse. It's much more upsetting because of that.
I am saying this with the utmost kindness and respect: Get over it.
Yes, and this time I am expecting them to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution.
The Democrats would crap on it, rewrite it tomorrow if they had the chance. We are supposed to be the ones defending it.
Ya know.. ?
So, by sending this to SCOTUS, how is he NOT protecting the Constitution? If it gets vetoed, it will be reworked and passed again next year -- maybe with larger majorities -- maybe veto-proof. Maybe the most egregious parts will be cut out, allowing it to slip by the judiciary.
I claim the current course of action is the one that is most likely to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. (You might be confused by some posters on this thread, but the oath does not say "I will veto any law I have an inkling might be unconstitutional.")
But my original point is still sound: There is entirely too much nose-cutting in order to cause face-spiting.
Pretty much. Yeah.
There is nothing to prevent this from happening under your scenario.
I think you are wrong. If you want to fight your wars on the doorstep as opposed to the field don't expect my approval.
Oh, what a cop out.
They ALL (not just Dubya) are supposed to uphold our Constitution. Armey offered an amendment which stated that "no part of this bill may be Unconstitutional" and they voted him down.
If you actually believe it's okay for Congress to pass Unconstitutional Legslation and for the President to sign it, expecting the SCOTUS to play "goalie" and stop it.
Then you may be in the wrong place.
Dumbest thing I have seen posted today.
That's your justification for passing Unconstitutional laws?
Something your mom told you when you were little?
please!
Dumbest thing I have seen posted today.
Funny, that. Considering that you felt obligated to respond to it twice.
Well, you got nasty all of a sudden. The personal invective just flew out there.
Now, if I do a Find in Forum, am I going to find a rabid Bush supporter who got disappointed for the first time with CFR or am I going to find a perpetual malcontent who does nothing but criticize those who he claims are on his side?
Hmmm, I wonder . . .
This has a whole lot less to do with Bush than it does to do with Congress.. Especially the house.
It's about the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
If you want to gamble that on a court ruling, fine. But remember, if you lose we had several chances to stop it before reaching that point.
And I don't care if it's Bush, Clinton, Congress, McCain or Elanor Roosevelt, if they took an oath to uphold the Constitution then they shouldn't be passing laws they know are Unconstitutional and expecting the SCOTUS to clean up their mess.
The only reason Dubya is tied up in this is that he has the ball now. It's been passed by both houses and now they have handed it off to him.
He can veto it because he doesn't like the font they typed it in if he wants to. It's fully legal and within his power to do so.
And That's why the focus has shifted to Dubya and the White House. It's because he has the bill now.
If he signs it, expect to see the focus shift yet again to the SCOTUS.
If you insist on using all due respect, then it's Dr. AmishDude. But I will settle for informalities.
If you want to gamble that on a court ruling, fine.
A court ruling has a finality that a veto doesn't. The last time they tried CFR, the SCOTUS slapped them down hard on many provisions and they didn't try it for another 20 years. I would even contend many of the provisions they kept (donation limits, for example) are unconstitutional. However, the courts OKed it. This SCOTUS will slap them down harder this time. Perhaps they will even take this opportunity to go further.
they shouldn't be passing laws they know are Unconstitutional
Ya know, if somebody in 1972 tried to pass a law forcing abortion to be legal in all 50 states, they would have claimed it was an unconstitutional law.
Still, I know who the real enemy is here and I want the solution that defeats them the most soundly.
I think allowing something to reach the court (which is our Constitutional backstop) should be a last resort.
In saying you support this you are also saying you favor both congress and the President turning their back on their oath to uphold the Constitution. (so it can go to the SC and be struck down)
So, why bother with a oath in the first place? I mean, that's your position.
There is nothing to prevent the Congress from passing a reworded version of this bill if and when the makeup of the SC changes, so your point is moot. A SC knockdown today does nothing to prevent the bill from being enacted tomorrow.
And as far as Roe v Wade goes, I rate it right up there with the Brady Bill as perfect examples of Unconstitutional Legslation that was enacted by an activist judiciary.
Hell, it won't even have taken effect yet.
This legislative piece of crapola was so vital, so desperately necessary to the preservation of the Republic...it had to wait.
BTW, IF you " expect " this from the Dems, then WHY insure that they hold both houses and the presidency by NOT voting for the GOPers and Bush ? Please explain how THAT helps us.
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.