Posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:33 AM PST by PeteF
GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - President Bush signed landmark campaign finance legislation Wednesday and the National Rifle Association swiftly filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
Bush signed the measure in the Oval Office — without the public signing ceremony often staged for major legislation. In a written statement, he said that while the bill has flaws, it "improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns."
Bush then embarked on a two-day swing to South Carolina and Georgia, where he planned to raise more than $3 million for GOP candidates for Congress.
Critics have long argued the legislation violates the Constitution, and the NRA was the first in line to file its challenge at the federal courthouse a few blocks from the White House. The legislation "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of the NRA and its political victory fund.
Thusly, I did you the courtesy of pointing out a thread in which the NRA agrees with my position.
Besides, it looks like Starr, Abrams, and McConnell have at least four kings. Or Bush would have vetoed.
Won't this be like having the same team playing defence and offence?
Yeah, but by having the game at all, everyone lost.
It would not be possible to override his veto because to do so requires 2/3 of the Senate. The bill would most likely only be killed temporarily (until the next clinton-type administration rolls in). SCOTUS will throw this POS bill out. This has to go to the SCOTUS while the SCOTUS is relatively conservative!! If W. pushed this off toteh next administration, the makeup of SCOTUS may be different (meaning worse).
Big deal. democRATS will just double the amount of ILLEGAL cash they receive. And Bush and the GOP will ignore the new ILLEGAL contributions ... just like they ignored the ILLEGAL contributions of the last two elections (as proven by Ashcroft doing NOTHING about the Riady non-refund).
we'll see how easy it will be for Bush to get another Conservative on the bench after they kill the medias pet project.
Seems it would have been easier to take a leadership role against this earlier in the process.
Right. And of course wafflers never can comprehend the power of a committed base. This stokes their base and drains energy off of ours. Bush won't get any credit for signing this, he only loses. It will be pontificated that he only signed this because he had to, not because he wanted to.
Rippin
Why did you sign this bill Mr President??? These same people wanted to silence your supporters during the algore coup attempt but had no legal way to do it. Now with your pen you give your enemies a legal weapon to use against you and your allies!
Scenario 1: George W. Bush veto's the bill. The Democratically controlled Senate spends the time between now and the fall elections beating GW and the Republicans over the head, eventually overriding the veto weeks before the election in a media enhanced blaze of saving America publicity. Months after the election the Supremes overturn the law, but the damage has been done, Dems are firmly in control of Congress. No conservative judges on the court. No conservative agenda going anywhere.
Scenario 2: He signs the bill as soon as he can. Shuts up his critics. Makes sure his legal team "defending" the law understands the end game. The court strikes down most if not all of the law. Takes the issue away. November elections go the way of the Pubbies. More conservative judges are seated. The country continues it's move to the right.
You are joking, right? You weren't serious when you posted this, were you?
And MY point was that this lawsuit was ready to go, now a done deal. The NRA is not *stopped*. Who do you think you are talking to?
NRAILA, at your service. I don't usually post a FACT unless I KNOW the facts...which is more than I can say for a whole bunch of the bashers here.
NRA bump!
Maybe to those who don't have a political brain. W. is deploying some "strategerey" here. He knows SCOTUS will toss this abomination out. He eliminates this as an issue the dems can use in the upcoming elections. He also ensures that this type of bill never sees the light of day again. If he is going to beat the democrats, he has to be as sly as they are about his politics.
Say he had vetoed it(which is what I lobbied him to do, BTW). Now the Dems would keep harping on it and using CFR as an issue. He can say it is unconstitutional until he is blue in the face, but all the Dems have to do is ignore that and keep harping on it as a wedge issue to portray him as the stereotypical GOP tied to "Big Bizness". You can't get a Supreme Court ruling on a law that hasn't past, so debate about its constitutionality is only that, debate.
Instead he has chosen to allow it to become law, fast-tracking it to the Supreme Court, and will likely get a quick ruling. So by this time next year(and likely before the Fall elections) everyone will know whether it is constitutional or not. Easier to fight it in the next go round if you can soundbite it to "the Supreme Court already declared it unconstitutional".
IF this is actually the administration's thinking on this, they must be pretty confident it will be struck down. Certainly not what I would have done(I actually believe in the Constitution), but just trying to expain what MIGHT be their logic behind allowing it to become law. But even with that strategy, he didn't have to sign it. Of course BillyBob's solution would have been classic, too.
I knew this in advance of you pointing it out, however, it is a distraction from the NRA's primary mission and you are assuming the courts will rule to strike down CFR. The Dred Scott decision shows that the SCOTUS does not always side with rightousness.
Your conjecture as to outcome in no way detracts from my point: The law of the land presently stops the NRA.
Your last premise is unsupportable. It is not moving to the right. Conservative bastions such as North Carolina and Texas are being overrun by liberalism. California, which since 1956 was a reliable Republican state (excepting 1964), is now reliably Democrat. Many other examples abound that the country is moving left and both parties are moving towards Statism.
The only question is whether most or all of the bill is killed.
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.