Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill

Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

[NittanyLion]

I might add, under your theory why did the Founders task the President with signing the bill? You see him as a simple rubber stamp, who could easily be eliminated from the process if Congress were to send the bill directly to SCOTUS.

[OWK]

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

So you are suggesting then, that the legislative and executive branches are under no obligation to even TRY to adhere to the constitution, cause the good old SCOTUS is there.

No wonder people don't take you seriously.

[Triple]

Last attempt to crack open your thick skull.

Bush can veto for any reason he sees fit. One really good reason is the constitutionality of the bill, if Bush thinks its unconstitutional, he has the sole authority to uphold his oath of office and veto the bill.

Earlier in the thread you acknowledged these facts and stated with certainty, that the congress would over-ride so a veto was a waste of time.

How are you so certain?

Don't you tink that Bush would save face with conservatives if this trash passed over his veto, instead of his endorsement?

Triple, out.

[Howlin]

Harrison, you then went on to tell me that if I don't see things the way you see them, I'm practicing moral relativism, which I would assume you don't take kindly to, and I would have to come down on the side of you thinking I am WRONG if I disagree with you.

My point is just because you don't like the things I say or disagree with my opinions -- which somebody along the way in this thread pointed out are MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS -- then somehow I'm wrong.

[itsahoot]

At the risk of repeating myself time after time, where EXACTLY
in the Constitution does it say that the POTUS can decide a
bill is unconstitional ON HIS OWN and just not sign it?

Are you really this slow, or are you just trying to keep a ruckas
going?

[oldcats]

Why not make up quotes...isn't the one on the first page of this site a made up one?
Oldcats

[Howlin]

BTW, I'm not saying I think that would be a GOOD reason to do it this way, I'm just saying I can understand that viewpoint.

[angkor]

Don't tell me to get over it because I don't intend to. Ever.

During November 2000, I freeped "Cheney's house," sent faxes out the wazoo, and contributed $500 to the recount efforts.

What was I thinking? With his in-your-face immigration outrages, and now this immoral assault on the Bill Of Rights, GWB has completely betrayed this conservative.

I will most certainly vote against him in 2004.

[Redcloak]

[NittanyLion]

My point is just because you don't like the things I say or disagree with my opinions -- which somebody along the way in this thread pointed out are MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS -- then somehow I'm wrong.

The opinion itself is not wrong, you are free to think whatever you choose. But it certainly is not the one the Founders held.

[Sir Gawain]

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?

Howlin, we're thinking on two totally different levels here. That's the problem. You're thinking political strategy, which is possibly something that could pay off for Bush by him doing this. I'm thinking Constitutionality and putting the preservation of the Founding Documents above politics. I know, I know, I'm idealistic. Maybe politics is not for me.

[uncbob]

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?
Hell by that logic he should sign EVERYTHING congress passes

You didn't see Clinton worrying about the fact the public voted out the democrats and voted in the GOP control of congress when he vetoed bills

And how about SCOTUS tells congress AND Bush they are creeps for passing it

[Howlin]

I know it, too. I believe he is wrong to sign it; I'm saying there can be more than one justification of it.

Just because you and I believe it's unconstitutional and he shouldn't sign it, doesn't mean it's the correct political thing to do.

Unless you don't ever want to hold the Senate and House and White House again.

[Smile-n-Win]

The obvious answer is that the Founders intended for a defense of the Constitution by using depth. All three branches have a shot at eliminating unconstitutional legislation, not just the courts.

Precisely. Two down, one to go--I don't think the Founders would be happy.

[GoMonster]

It is called the winning principle.

[NittanyLion]

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?

Of course, if Bush were to sign the bill he'll be included in the group you describe as "creeps". Right?

[Howlin]

Excuse me.........slight little detail to clear up.........IF the POTUS and the Hill ALL vote for a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, just HOW does it ever get to the SC?

[GoMonster]

You are a closet liberal anyway. Enjoy.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I'll admit it, he was wrong to do so on principles, but sometimes you win the war by losing a battle. Now I know that goes against the "we can have it all if we just really, really want it all" crowd, but it's true.

The portions of this bill that are the most damaging to free speech will never withstand a Constitutional challenge, so why are we disturbed about them? This is a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Democrats. Look at it this way:

1) Elections coming up. With the Republicans doing even or better than the Democrats on traditional Democratic issues (education, health care, etc.) the Democrats need an issue to scare the voters with. Danged economy is rebounding, so that's a wash. I know! Campaign Finance Reform, George will never sign that or he'll damage his base!

2) CFR bill looks like it will pass both houses of Congress, so the Democrats drool in anticipation. But what!?! Bush sign's it!?!

3) Democrats now have no national issue to run on, and George can say, "Hey, I gave you CFR, but the doggone Supreme Court shot down a bunch of the restrictions."

4) Republicans re-gain the Senate, build a lead in the House, Jeffords is sent to the back of the line, and Bush can push his agenda with gusto.

Now I know many do not like this, but it's the truth. Some have a fear of success, some think all government is contemptable including the one established in the Constitutution, and some just like to complain. Get elected President, then you can veto whatever you like.

[Howlin]

Correct! And, now that you brought that up, what was it Chuckie Schumer went over there and told them not too long ago, that they were NOT to do something, but I can't remember what! Do you?