Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill

Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

[OWK]

You can't just click your ruby slippers and wish it away.

And yet.....

[Bushwonyes]

Hoowee Will the REAL President Bush supporters raise their hands! One of the sections of the CFR bill is that UNIONS can no longer give their members money away to a political candidate they are personally /politically against. Also raises contributions to $2000. Regarding no political ads 60 days before a general election , I believe the President is taking a gamble and betting the SUPREME COURT will knock that down.

[plain talk]

Bingo. I'm PO'd he signed this bill. It's a wrong stupid bill. But the negative he gets from me on signing this bill is more than offset by his pushing and signing the tax cut. I add up pluses and minuses for a politcian and make my judgments based on the summation. Many are blowing this way out of proportion and have forgotten their math.

[Sir Gawain]

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.

Most likely because they had doubts about the Constitutionality before Bush did. Not everyone that criticizes the President is an enemy. I'm critical because I want him to succeed and not fail. If I wanted him to fail, I'd be cheering on this stupid political decision.

[Triple]

BTW, I posted all of Art 1 section 7 earlier in this thread.

[itsahoot]

But that won't matter, you have your own narrow agenda, and
a need to flagellate yourself about some pull out of the air
"betrayal" on CFR.

Electing a Rino is a lot like taking a placebo, you probably feel
better for a while, but you rarely get well, as a result. So take
your placebo and call us in the morning.

[Harrison Bergeron]

""Please explain to me how, if I disagree with you, I am wrong?"

You said: "Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong."

The statement in itself, when used to validate a point of argument, is moral relativism. To make such a statement truthful in the logical sense one would have to agree that the reverse is just as valid - that nobody is wrong. It's the modern day newspeak of the left. It's the stomach turning rhetoric for which boards like DU are famous. Very disappointing to read on FR indeed.

[ravingnutter]

Problem is...you have taken that entirely quote entirely out of context...

"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this [web] site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." -- George Jr., discussing a web site that parodies him.

The website is a disgusting attack on President Bush by a rabid liberal who should be sued for defamation of character, if not outright slander.

[Howlin]

I completely understand that. That is the PROCESS.

I'm not going to repeat my question again.

[Sir Gawain]

Why did the founders put the Supreme Court into the Constitution.

Certainly not to be above the Executive or Legislative branch.

[OWK]

Wrong about what?

If he signs this legislation, he's in the wrong.

You know it... I know it....

Stop defending the indefensible.

Sometimes it's OK to simply say... "He's wrong".

[NittanyLion]

I'm not going to repeat my question again.

I didn't even know you'd asked one. At least, not one you're interested in having answered.

[Howlin]

Um, what happens if the POTUS and the Congress pass a bill that IS unconstitutional? No recourse?

[Dane]

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.

Uh actually not, if that was true, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

Thank God you were not a founding father.

[NittanyLion]

Um, what happens if the POTUS and the Congress pass a bill that IS unconstitutional? No recourse?

No, SCOTUS is the recourse. Your point?

[Howlin]

Don't try to bring reason into this.

[NittanyLion]

Uh actually not, if that was true, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

No, it is necessary as a last resort. Your point?

[Howlin]

You don't see any good from letting the Supreme Court tell those creeps in Congress THEY wrote, lobbied, and passed an unconstitutional bill, as opposed to Bush saying it on TV, to the DEMS and the press who already think he stole the 2000 election?

[uncbob]

I'm not going to repeat my question again.

Seems to me I remember a while back the SCOTUS ASKED the congress not to use the SCOTUS as a FILTER as to the constitutionality of laws

In essence they were saying read the document you swore to defend before passing laws

[Sir Gawain]

You're not looking for any answers. Bush makes no mistakes.