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]
To: GregoryFul
Yea, that's why the lawmakers swear an oath to "uphold the Constitution", right? If they cannot tell what is Constitutional or not, they have no business being in congress. The judiciary is a citizens last (legal) defense against a tyranical government, the representitives should be the first.
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 vetos, 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?
145 posted on 3/25/02 1:33 AM Central by Texasforever
[
Of course I haven't asked, as I have come to recognize those that never have and never will support GW Bush or any Republican for that matter. The point is that I along with plenty other "conservatives" who did support, vote for, and want to continue supporting GW (not necessarily a blank check for the GOP these days) are truly struggling with his actions and televised glee today at the signing of this bill.
Trust me all of us questioning his actions are not Bush bashers at heart, but are questioning loyalty to him. Loyalty is a two way street. And while I in no way wish to compare him to Xlinton, it is tough when from my view way out here in the "bench seats" GW today most emphatically violated his "Oath of Office".
To this ex-Army Officer, a violation of ones Oath is a violation, regardless of who or over what. If I excuse GW simply because he is our guy, I'm sorry that is a self portrait that resembles all the Xlinton defenders.
I am trying hard not to bash GW, but I can't for the life of me get beyond my extreme consternation and abject disappointment in the President.
The reason I asked about is there anything he could do that would cause you to seriously question your support of the man is because I like you flatly refused to be a "single issue" voter/supporter. My line came with GW's refusal to follow his Oath concerning what I feel is our most sacred right ... Free Speech.
I would imagine come 004/November I will find myself voting for him again, but I would be less than honest if I didn't say my support will absolutely be tepid at best compared to the enthusiasm I felt and displayed during his last election. Hell, I even went in 3 weeks early and voted absentee at the court house I was so pumped.
I wish I could only be saying, "The President disappointed me today!" when in actuality "the man, G. W. Bush" deeply disappointed me today.
Thanks for the good natured reply. See, it wasn't a trick question and remember, just because we are disappointed and some of us may use rhetoric claiming to "never support him again", most is due to a passion about our Constitution and his Oath of Office. And some of us may just have a different threshold than others, for questioning the validity of our continued support of the man.
By the way I got to hear his enthusiastic support of the bill, did you? Un-freaking-believable.
Nice job...
As you and others here have done, I too have been trying to teach those here, who know / understand nothing about this Bill, and less about politics, what it's all about. They refuse to learn. These are the UNAPPEASEABLES, political naifs, CINOs, who don't need an excuse to trash President Bush, and any old thing will do.
The Dems have been crying in their beer, ever since this Bill was passed ! IT HURTS THEM ! They never believed that Bush would sign it; they just wanted it to use as a club against him. McNutso is pleased as punch, and envisions even more silly Bills, of his, to pass. He needs to be locked away in the funny farm ; right along with te FREEPERS who love to complain about things they don't understand anything about.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The CINO's, as you call us, believe that prinicples, especially Constitutional principles, mean something other than words of dead white men penned over 200 years ago. We believe that the ends don't justify the means, and up to now have strongly believed in President Bush as a man of honor and principle. As stated on this thread, more than one person worked hard for his election, and the last thing we want to do is to "trash him". But there comes a point where abandonment of principles for a political end puts him in the same category as other Presidents who chose expediency over principle.
The Dems have been crying in their beer, ever since this Bill was passed ! IT HURTS THEM ! They never believed that Bush would sign it; they just wanted it to use as a club against him.
And the Rats will do it either way, whether he signs it or not. Now that it is clear he WILL sign it, they are taking up the call of him abandoning his prinicples, and will hammer him just as they would if he vetos it. It is a no win situation for him with the press, but if he vetos it, at least he would have done the right and constitutional thing.
McNutso is pleased as punch, and envisions even more silly Bills, of his, to pass. He needs to be locked away in the funny farm; ...
No question about that.
...right along with the FREEPERS who love to complain about things they don't understand anything about.
We understand plenty, but don't understand why those who also would call themselves Freepers would encourage our President, who was elected on a conservative platform, to abandon those very values he so championed during the campaign, including keeping your word.
Can you see these same Freepers if clinton had vetoed a bill because it was unconstitutional -- they would have been yelling that only the SCOTUS can determine that!
At times during this I have wanted to take my computer screen and shake it in hopes that the truth about this CFR will get through to some folks on here. Then I realized it was useless -- they don't want to know and understand because then their trashing would be harder to do.
Now, let me ask you a few questions.
If the Dems will condemn President Bush willy nilly ( which they shall ), and their main objective in doing so, by using the tactic that he is going against his " base ", then aren't you doing their bidding ? If the CFR Bill is a free speech issue , have you personally had your speech curtailed ? Considering that the SC will cut out the unConstitutional parts, what harm has been done to the Constitution ir the BoR ? If , and it SHALL , a ruling by the SC shuts McLunatic up, finally, for good and all, on this matter, as a veto absolutely would NOT , then what have you and the rest of us lost ?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... this Bill, and President Bush's signing it, is trivial , in the scheme of things. It doesn't shred the Constitution, and doesn't break his oath of office. Only the most strident ideologue would say so. Not one president has been as rigid, as some here claim to want ; not a one !
Please allow me to put this in other terms. THE " peaceniks " and " ban the bomb " gang, want / ed ONLY the USA to pay by those rules. We all know what that would lead to; don't we ? When the rules are what they are, and the Constitution is stll left whole, then it is incombent on our side, to play dirty. How many times have all of us thought / has it been posted on FR, that our side needs a spine, more testostereone, gonads, guts, to fight back / be on the offense, instead of always being on the defense or just caving in ? Well ... ? This is a win - win; not a lose - lose. This is OFFENSE , in a very clever way. It is so subtle, that it's amazingly bellicose ! It's so " in your face ", that you and others have missed it.
The " common man " out there, isn't paying attention to this, it's a nonstarter. Not only that, in 2 years, they won't even remember this nor the Enron junk. Will there be more things that I or you, or Howlin, or any of the rest of us will find fault with ? No doubt about it. If ; however, we allow that to keep us home, not voting for this president, than WE have shreded the Constitution, and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, thet the FFs were 100 % correct in saying that the common man was far too stupid, to be allowed to have the final say on who gets to be president. I'm NOT that stupid ; how about you ?
If you and Howlin, and Texasforever, and I and a whole raft of people can see what's what, is it some kind of miricale, that the Bush team, the brightest of the bright, came up with a win - win scenario ? I think not ! Is it appalling that there are FREEPERS who think that NOT voting for GOPers in 2002 and deffinitly NOT Bush in 2004 will enshrine the Constiution, and somehow make life better ? You bet it is; it's even worse than that !
Ain't that the truth!
This began as a "vision" from John Mc@__ wipe and his sour grapes.
Now, it's grown legs and gone way beyone one little man's vanity.
Thanks McCain.
(Speaking of the Primaries, one of the hardest laugh's I ever had was over that McCain "Hand me the Constitution, I need to wipe" graphic that was all the rage at the time. Pretty ironic now, actually.)
Just wanted to second those comments. Must admit that I am totally shocked at the lack of knowledge of the Separation of Powers in the Government of this Country by some Freepers! Next they will be blaming the public school system for what they chose not to learn or retain because all Civics books I have seen explain Separation of Powers very well and in every last one, the SCOTUS was the final judge of a law's constitutionality!
Can you tell that I am irritated at the lack of comprehension on here on this subject?
Notice that you are pretty much the only one talking about McCain? Nobody's talking about Feingold. Nobody's talking about the overwhelming numbers of Democrats who voted for this. Nope, it's all about Bush.
Apparently, Democrats can do anything they want, but let a Republican not do somthing right and it's "off with his head".
You know what I think? I think most of these people (many of whom are Bush/Republican-bashers from waaaaaaaaaay back) aren't upset at CFR at all. I think they were looking for an opportunity to look self-righteous as they "withdraw their support."
Bottom line: Congress said it was OK and who is Bush to argue with them? He's just one man. Betcha if Bush vetoed a bill because he stated he thought it was unconstitutional, he would get harangued by the same crowd for being a dictator and a statist.
Though you will be described as "un-principled" that is exactly right. Bush did not set the game rules and he is not going to change them by being the political Rambo many seem to want him to be. Bush is NOT a hard hitting political boxer he uses political Jujitsu to use other's strengths against them, He did this brilliantly in Texas and he is doing it against a much more liberal monster in Washington.
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.