Posted on 03/25/2002 11:16:37 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Mon Mar 25,10:19 AM ET
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.
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.
From michigander:
unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court
Seems Jefferson disagrees with you.
"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Washington too.
The first use of this Constitutional power was by Washington, who, on the 5th April, 1792, vetoed the "Representation Bill," which originated in the House of Representatives. As this, from its priority, is an event worthy of extended notice, we give the circumstances of the case, as briefly related by Jefferson, then secretary of state:--
"April 6th. The President called on me before breakfast, and first introduced some other matter, then fell on the Representation Bill, which he had now in his possession for the 10th day. I had before given him my opinion, in writing, that the method of apportionment was contrary to the Constitution. He agreed that it was contrary to the common understanding of that instrument, and to what was understood bill the time by the makers of it; that yet it would bear the construction which the bill put; and he observed that the vote for and against the bill was perfectly geographical--a northern against a southern vote--and he feared he should be thought to be taking side with a southern party. I admitted the motive of delicacy, but that it should not induce him to do wrong, and urged the dangers to which the scramble for the fractionary members would always lead. He here expressed his fear that there would, ere long, be a separation of the Union; that the public mind seemed dissatisfied, and tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, the attorney-general, desired him to get Mr. Madison immediately, and come to me; and if we three concurred in opinion, that he would negative the bill. He desired to hear nothing more about it, but that we would draw up the instrument for him to sign. They came;--our minds had been before made up;--we drew the instrument Randolph carried it to him, and told him we all concurred in it He walked with him to the door, and, as if he still wished to get off, he said, "And you say you approve of this yourself?" "Yes, sir," says Randolph; "I do, upon my honor." He sent it to the House of Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the bill expressed passion, but the majority were satisfied, and both in and out of doors it gave pleasure to have at length an instance of the negative being exercised. Written this, the 9th April."
United States, April 5, 1792.
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I have maturely considered the Act passed by the two Houses, intitled, "An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration,"44 and I return it to your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections.
[Note 44: On April 6 the "Apportionment Bill," as it was called, was reconsidered in the light of the President's veto and failed to pass over the same. This is recorded in the Annals of Congress of that date. A digest of the opinions of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War, and of the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the bill, in the writing of Tobias Lear, is in the Washington Papers filed at the end of April, 1792.]
First: The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States, according to their respective Numbers: and there is no one proportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill.
Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand: which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the seperate and respective numbers of the States: and the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for thirty thousand.45
[Note 45: From the "Letter Book" copy in theWashington Papers.]
You are right there. I work with both Democrats and Republicans and they couldn't care less about the Campaign Finance Reform Bill.
Run next time. Or vote for another candidate, if you voted for Bush in the first place.
About your line in the sand, it's pretty hard for ANYBODY to every please you if you draw the line in the sand IN A COMPLETE CIRCLE AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE IN THE CIRCLE.
We will not forget this-May just not vote next time. Was going to vote for RHINO Dole for senator because I knew she would at least support Bush's agenda, but GUESS WHAT, I don't want to support his agenda anymore. Will never vote for a RHINO again even if it means the Dems. take over... What's worse than having our freedoms legislated away ????
No, its called following ideals. Something of which seems not to be the norm of late. Used to be you could count on a mans word. In the world we live today "trust" has gone by the wayside.
Yeah. How dare he or anybody else have a personal opinion!
In case you didn't notice, 'some' presidents do things in office that are not according to the Constitution and they get away with it.
I have ONLY asked for the EXACT words in the Constitution that give any president to decide on his OWN that a bill is not constitutional.
While you're busy with that, you can include anything you might think has anything to justify the existence of the Supreme Court, if the president has all the power.
Interestingly enough, they're using moral relativism and scary "My president right or wrong!" rhetoric. I thought thhose were the tools of the other side. My mistake.
Hey, I'm just another "Bozo on the Bus".
Of COURSE there are many opinions besides mine, including whether it's the Presidents duty to veto what he KNOWS to be Un-Constitutional legislation,
it just happens that yours is the WRONG opinion.
But when you subject your opinions to the Constitution, it can be said that there is one right answer. I think based on both the Constitution and the Washington veto posted right here by michigander, it can be safely said that a President must ascertain whether a bill passes constitutional muster, and veto it if it does not.
Isn't that exactly why "their" candidate was so successful last time?
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
If you have doubts that a bill is constitutional, but sign it anyway, are you upholding your Oath?
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.