Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill

Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

[Dane]

If you have doubts that a bill is constitutional, but sign it anyway, are you upholding your Oath?

Huh, then why do we have a Supreme Court? Or did the Founders put the Supreme Court into the Constitution just for fun?

Come on, your alls superior knowledge can answer that question.

You all seem to pride yourselves of being the "know alls and be alls".

[Sir Gawain]

Ah, isn't that what we all come here for? Are the women folks ALL suppose to only post on the fashion threads?

I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth and either answer my question in #140 or go bait someone else.

[Howlin]

And some of us wouldn't support him if he was Mother Teresa.

[Pokey78]

Bad english on my part. hehe

[Tuxedo]

Depends on what you mean by "support". If you define a strict adherence, then there is a contradiction in allowing it to be amended. The ad ban is obviously unconstitutional. Although it can be said that TV stations violate the 1st amendment every election cycle by not granting access time to certain candidates. Now, should Bush veto it? Yes! And I fail to understand his actions here. But does it mean I won't vote for him in 2004? No... I plan to vote for him. I would like him to strike down Roe v. Wade by Executive Order, but since he has no plans to do that, I still will vote for him. He will be far superior to Hillary, Daschle, Edwards, or any of their ilk.

[Howlin]

I answered your question. Just I DID read it. And then I asked you to provide the words from the Constitution that give them the right to decide ALONE that a bill is unconstitutional.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Not even Rush, the eternal Republican, can support him on this. I think that the only liberals that support this CFR are politicians and the media.

[Sir Gawain]

You all seem to pride yourselves of being the "know alls and be alls".

Are you replying to me or to everyone with a different opinion than you? Stop painting with a broad brush.

[deport]

If you have doubts that a bill is constitutional, but sign it anyway, are you upholding your Oath?

Doubts equals uncertainty, but not absolute knowledege or assurance.... then if that's the case the correct method is to let the Constitutional arbitrator decide... imo.

[Howlin]

That depends. Did he ever say "I have doubts about the Constitutionality of this, but I'll sign it anyway."?

No. And neither did Bush until about a week ago, but I think if you'll look back to the "Bush has lost my vote" threads, they started WAY before that.

[Triple]

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated..." - Article 1 section 7 the US Constitution

Man you are thick headed.

The President has the sole authority to veto - Article 1 section 7.

[Sir Gawain]

Fair enough, but I would err on the side of caution in Constitutional matters.

[michigander]

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.

Article. I.

Section. 7.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

See also.

[Dane]

Are you replying to me or to everyone with a different opinion than you? Stop painting with a broad brush.

Uh answer the question asked in reply #161. Why did the founders put the Supreme Court into the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is there. You can't just click your ruby slippers and wish it away.

[BeAChooser]

And if it is unconstitutional, which I presume it is, and so does Bush, the Supreme Court will say that.

Howlin, since, as you say, we don't KNOW that its unconstitutional, let me ask you this.

Is the part of the bill in question something Bush REALLY doesn't want to see, even if it is constitutional? If not, then isn't Bush taking an awful chance if he signs the bill because it might then remain law. There are, afterall, lots of things that are probably constitutional that conservatives like us (and Bush?) wouldn't want to see become law. Is he going go let the courts decide them all?

[OWK]

C'mon Howlin....

He was wrong.

Admit it.... your hair won't fall out...

I promise.

Just admit it. You'll feel better about yourself.

[Howlin]

Kindly show me where I asked about VETOES? I'm asking about ruling a bill unconstitutional ON HIS OWN.

Any president can veto a bill just because he doesn't think it's "good for America." That doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[NittanyLion]

Huh, then why do we have a Supreme Court? Or did the Founders put the Supreme Court into the Constitution just for fun?

As a last resort. If an unconstitutional bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President, they are to rule on it. But each of the aforementioned two has a duty to forward only constitutional bills/laws to the next step.

You all seem to pride yourselves of being the "know alls and be alls".

I certainly never said that. If that's the way you see me, I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks.

[hchutch]

Face it, some people will not be satisfied unless the GOP makes the political equivalent of Pickett's charge every time. Never mind the fact that Pickett's Charge was an unmitigated disaster for the South.

One of my brother's favorite scenes in the movie Gettysburg is when General Pickett says, "General Lee, I have no division" after the charge. It makes an interesting point that is lost on some of these folks.

[Howlin]

Wrong about what?