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.
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".
I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth and either answer my question in #140 or go bait someone else.
Are you replying to me or to everyone with a different opinion than you? Stop painting with a broad brush.
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.
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.
Man you are thick headed.
The President has the sole authority to veto - Article 1 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.
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.
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?
He was wrong.
Admit it.... your hair won't fall out...
I promise.
Just admit it. You'll feel better about yourself.
Any president can veto a bill just because he doesn't think it's "good for America." That doesn't make it unconstitutional.
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.
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.
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.