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]
How well I remember that one....I must have posted it a gazillion times.
Then, I will start to feel better...
I have struggled mightily with this.We all have, my friend. As I said earlier, I'd have much preferred a veto. Though I wouldn't agree with the proposition that Bush is violating his oath by signing it.
Presidents, from time in memorial, have signed legislation of dubious constitutionality, knowingly.
The federal budget is a perfect illustration. It's the reason President Reagan wanted the line-item veto -- not merely to 'line-out' the pork, but to halt funding for programs he felt had no mandate in the constitution.
I know my concerns, in reality, aren't worth even two cents
Here again, we disagree =^) Your remarks, IMHO, are always thoughtful, interesting and keenly discerning -- as always.
We all will ;^)
Actually, it's the murdering Hitler conundrum. Is it moral (in the Judeo-Christian sense) to murder Hitler? I would argue yes, even though the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder." Similarly here. The bill will be more dead this way. The Constitution will have survived a more crushing blow.
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.
All true -- in theory. In practice, a veto spurs on the opponents of a bill. They look around to see if they can get that 2/3rds majority. The SCOTUS is a brick wall. They don't even try to pass the bill again for a generation.
BTW, this is also a big pitch for getting the proper judicial appointments. Taking the Senate back in 2002 is key.
I would first direct you to the front page of the Free Republic forum where it reads:
"Not over my dead body will they curtail your free speech!"
-- President George "Dubya" Bush (what he should say re: CFR)
Suggesting that it is not a conservative position to be troubled by our president's action in this case is not supportable. And regarding your suggestion that only Bush-bashers are opposed to the president's actions in this case is also off the mark. I have supported the president in virtually all of his decisions thus far. I volunteered for his campaign. You are flat out wrong to suggest that my motivation is simply to bash him.
Regarding the intelligence of those how oppose the president's action: To challenge your assertions here would be wasted effort as you don't seem to be engaging those who are in opposition to your views, but are instead picking up the Lib practice of labeling your opponents in unsavory ways. To which I respond by sending a giant raspberry in your general direction.
Your arguments suggesting that anyone who opposes the president's actions are not supporting him in the general election are also without merit. Because he is making a dumb move now does not mean that I won't vote for him in 2004 given the prospects of his potential opponents.
Finally, your suggestions that anyone who is opposed to the president's actions in this issue are ignorant of the political process are also baseless. We are not simply talking about the ultimate action this law will have on campaign finance. It MAY be shot down by SCOTUS, but there are likely very bad portions of this law that will remain intact. At least as big of an issue as the ultimate tactical implications of the law is the fact that Bush is going back on a pledge he made to conservatives in signing this bill. This not only undermines his support among his strongest supporters, it will be used as a big stick to challenge his campaign pledges that he is a man of principle. By doubling back on one of his pledges, he has forfeited the right to claim that pledge of the moral high ground and it will be very hard for him to make that case again.
Personally I still don't see where MY own personal freedom of speech has been infringed upon. I detest Issue Ads from everyone!!!! Another personal opinion. I still have the right to go down on the square and complain or anywhere else.
The National Taxpayers Union published a major study about a year ago, tracking the spending habits of members of Congress against how long they had been in Congress, The bottom line was this: the longer they stay, the more they vote for larger government and higher taxes.
Both Republicans and Democrats went up in their spending votes at the same rate, the longer they stayed there. The difference between the Parties appeared in the fact that the Republicans started lower on the spending scale than the Democrats, and stayed lower IF COMPARED TO DEMOCRATS IN OFFICE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.
But term limits have the same problem as belling the cat. It's a good idea, but who's going to do it? Will Congress vote for such an amendment? Not in this lifetime. I've spent a lot of effort on that subject, and even wrote a book about it. But I will waste no more time flogging that dead horse.
Billybob
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.