Posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:33 AM PST by PeteF
Sure it is.
No, the President is not stupid. Merely unprincipled. (A principled man honor his sworn oath--on a Bible, no less--to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.")
Yes, many Presidents have vetoed bills on the basis of their lack of Constitutionality. At least back when Presidents gave a d@mn about the Constitution. Madison vetoed a bill providing federal funding for roads, because federal funding of roads isn't authorized by the Constitution (that hasn't stopped a boatload of Presidents since Madison, of course). Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill with federal aid for drought victims because the Constitution doesn't provide for federal funding for disaster victims (and THAT hasn't stopped a boatload of Presidents since Cleveland, of course).
It would be VERRRYYY interesting (to Constitution geeks like myself) to track the number of bills vetoed by Presidents on Constitutional grounds, since the Constitution went into effect. My guess is that the number of bills vetoed on Constitutional grounds has decreased dramatically since the "Progressive" Era.
For example, I'll bet a fair amount of money that President Clinton never vetoed a bill on Constitutional grounds. Instead, for example, he signed the Communications Decency Act...which was unanimously found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
I wonder when is the last time a president vetoed a bill on Constitutional grounds?
He added, "About this Constitution thing: Frankly, I don't give a d@mn."
Unless you're into armed rebellion, we lost our most important right in the Bill of Rights a long time ago--the 10th Amendment. The federal government is soooooo close to being without any check on its power, due to failure to enforce the 10th Amendment, that the CFR law is simply one more sign.
The fact that one quarter of the nation's income goes to the federal government is due to failure to follow the 10th Amendment. The CFR law is relatively minor, compared to 25% of our income being unconstitutionally funneled to the federal government.
Never been a Republican strong suit. (Nor a Democratic strong suit, obviously.) Defending offensive speech is only a Libertarian strong suit.
Question: G.W. Bush put his hand on a Bible and swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." So presumably, one would say he "gave his word" on that.
But he ALSO promised, at his nominating convention, to sign a federal law against partial birth abortion. Such a law, without question, violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
So...to which of his "words" would conservatives hold Mr. Bush? His oath at his swearing in, on the Bible, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"? Or his promise at the Republican nominating convention?
Bush could have vetoed it, but it would remain a Dem talking point going into this year's election cycle. Now it is not. Additionally, very few people are really aware of the free speech stomping CFR has because the major media outlets (who incidentally aren't affected through editorials) haven't played this up as a restriction on speech. Instead, they have been addressing this as "taking paid speech out of campaigns". Most Americans (both libs and conservatives) are unaware of this.
By signing this bill into law, Bush allowed it to go the court system, and his solicitor general has to defend it (hmmm). While the whole bill probably won't be struck down, I predict the speech prohibition part will be.
If the soft money ban remains, it's a conservative win since the Dems finally caught up with Repubs in the last election cycle in soft money contributions. The hard money limit increase works for the Repubs since they have a larger base of contributors who can max it out.
Apparently you didn't read the above phrase in the very first page. I am talking about issues that are directly, and not tangentially related. BTW, I have no idea why a ban on partial-birth abortion violates the 10th amendment. The 14th amendment already says that you cannot violate right to life without due process.
Now how are we supposed to do this when the only voice that can be legally heard during the last two months of an election campaign is the liberal media?
FYI, one reason the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the unborn is that the 14th Amendment only applies to "persons" and the unborn are NOT "persons." Never are, never will be...unless the Constitution is amended to classify them as such.
(One way you can tell that the unborn are not "persons" according to the Constitution is that the Constitution requires a Census that counts all "persons." The unborn aren't counted in the Census. Ergo, they are not persons.)
Absent a Constitutional amendment, there is NO Constitutional "right to life" for the unborn...and, in fact, the 10th Amendment expressly FORBIDS the federal government from becoming involved. (Note: Only some idiot Supreme Court judges see any "right to choose," either. Absent a Constitutional amendment, it's properly a state issue, where each state should decide everything from all forms being completely legal, to all forms being criminal.)
As for what it will do in the fall? Cause a few who may have voted for him to opt out of the process and probably keep many of of the lib/dems in that 80% approval rating to vote for R's over D's. This would be especially true if the courts strike down much of CFR when the president can then say, "I told you that would happen, but I wasn't going to be the one to interpret the law or frustrate the will of the people as determined through the votes of their elected representatives."
You mean the liberal-dominated judicial system for which the Senate Judiciary Committee will not even consider one conservative justice as a candidate?
Yes, the talking point would have been, "Republicans (except for my friend John McCain, and company) follow the Constitution, and protect your right to free speech. Democrats do not."
That's what's so pathetic about G.W. Bush. He can't take a principled position, and defend it from principle. (For example, he can't say, "Federal spending on education is bad. It's unconstitutional...and it takes money from states and from The People, and gives it to the federal government. Federal spending on education HURTS education.")
That's really sweet but for once, I would like a leader who has the temerity to say what he means.
Hey..You're Right! It's not directly over head, it's to the south a little. Close enough though.
Eddie01
Yes, the talking point would have been, "Republicans (except for my friend John McCain, and company) follow the Constitution, and protect your right to free speech. Democrats do not."
Guess what, the Republican/conservative message doesn't get out due to the major media outlets, so your "talking point" goes nowhere. The reality of the situation (which apparently you choose to ignore) is that most Americans only know what the major media tells them. For them, the talking point WOULD have been President Bush and the Repubs are against meaningful campaign finance reform.
So your answer is to give more power through CFR to the liberal media.........LMAO
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.