Skip to comments.
FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?
Me
Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 741-753 next last
To: Liberal Classic
This is a very dangerous game. Better, in my opinion, that if he opposed it that he should have vetoed it, and forced an overturn of his veto. If the courts then strike it down, Bush can say "See, I told you it was unconstitutional" and if they uphold it he can truthfully maintain he was against it from the start. I completely agree with that. I wish he hadn't signed it. There's absolutely no way I would have, if it were my call. But still, I'm not yet prepared to declare the Constitution dead at Bush's hand. The game is indeed dangerous--and needlessly so--but not yet over.
To: NittanyLion
your right on that but the main point here, as I run back to work, is that Bush signed a bad bill period. And many just wont accept it and design a grand delusion of strategy that he is pulling off.
To: Howlin
OK. (Calmly and in a normal tone of voice) Are you saying that the Supreme Court is designed to be the arbitor of first resort regarding legislative constitutionality? Is it proper for the legislature to debate and pass and for the Prisident to sign into law any bill they so desire with no consideration to its constitutionality simply because that's not their job, its the Supreme Court's?
To: Howlin
I believe the Constitution CALLS for the Supreme Court to adjudicate the law; unless you have a different interpretation, you're wrong. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court SAYS I'm right, in which case I am, because the Supreme Court is God, after all, and the Constitution doesn't mean squat until they say it does, and even then only until they change their minds and say it doesn't.
What a strange world you must live in where words change their meaning every day.
304
posted on
03/28/2002 10:28:39 AM PST
by
Sloth
To: Physicist
The game is indeed dangerous--and needlessly so--but not yet over. It gives one pause to wonder why it is a game at all.
What happened to honesty?
What happened to saying what you mean, and meaning what you say?
Politics could certainly use a healthy dose of it.
305
posted on
03/28/2002 10:28:52 AM PST
by
OWK
To: hobbes1
"or Like running around like a chicken with it's head cut off, yelling about the Death of the Constitution?"Ok, we get it you don't think the constitution is very important. At least not as important as the re-election of GW. I have to be honest with you though. That is not something I would be very proud of.
306
posted on
03/28/2002 10:29:46 AM PST
by
monday
To: OWK
"Principal is."Please, read the entire bill.
To: cake_crumb
Please, read the entire bill. Are you trying to suggest that it is a principled piece of legislation?
308
posted on
03/28/2002 10:32:13 AM PST
by
OWK
To: Sloth
What a strange world you must live in where words change their meaning every day. Well, I basically quoted the Constituion; and now you seem to have a problem with THAT, too? You're the one who went on the rant because evidently you don't even like what THAT says.
Do you want the Supreme Court to stop doing what they are suppose to do, or do you just want them to agree with you on every single isssue?
309
posted on
03/28/2002 10:32:21 AM PST
by
Howlin
To: foolish-one
Are you saying that the Supreme Court is designed to be the arbitor of first resort regarding legislative constitutionality? I never said anything close to that; I used the word ADJUDICATE.
Main Entry: ad·ju·di·cate
Pronunciation: &-'jü-di-"kAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
Date: 1775
transitive senses : to settle judicially
intransitive senses : to act as judge
310
posted on
03/28/2002 10:35:01 AM PST
by
Howlin
To: Sunshine Patriot
LOL. You're quite right. Each of the three should be reworked. Yikes.
To: DoughtyOne
Pryor's last decent movie! I love the "none of the above" campaign and the consequences that result :-).
To: LibertysConscience
Bump....welcome to FR...that was about the best first post I have ever read!
313
posted on
03/28/2002 10:37:06 AM PST
by
monday
To: rbmillerjr
And many just wont accept it and design a grand delusion of strategy that he is pulling off. That's ridiculous! I think political strategist see this as REALISM. An argument could be made on both sides on who is being the most delusional. . .especially on this thread.
314
posted on
03/28/2002 10:37:29 AM PST
by
Alissa
To: Howlin
Legislation progresses through four separate bodies; each has the responsibility to ascertain whether the legislation is in agreement with the Constitution. If at any time one of those bodies decided it is not, they have a responsibility to NOT allow the legislation to continue. Those bodies are, of course, the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court.
If a blatantly unconstitutional law such as this one reaches the Supreme Court, it demonstrates a dismal failure of the three prior bodies to uphold the Constitution.
To: OWK
To: cake_crumb
Not everything is black and white...cc
Principle is...owk
297 posted on 3/28/02 9:22 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by OWK
so is propaganda/bias...fC
bias vs Truth...
To: Howlin
Whew! That was close. Thanks for the clarification.
To: OWK
"Are you trying to suggest that it is a principled piece of legislation?"I'm asking you to read the entire bill. You're right: some things ARE black and white. Please read the entire bill is one of them. It means please read the entire bill.
To: Howlin
"I'm not one of these "line in the sand" types"Well there you have it, NOTHING is worth fighting for, everything is negociable. Good thing you were not at the Alamo.
319
posted on
03/28/2002 10:40:46 AM PST
by
jpsb
To: NittanyLion
"As I said the other day, each of the three branches of government is responsible for eliminating unconstitutional law - it doesn't just fall to the judicial branch." Pray tell,.. enlighten us to the responsiblities of the three branches of our Government.
Even though you do not know the educational level of, nor the Government experience some here have,.. please educate us all.
I'm sincerely interested in your opinion and views on how each branch should have responded to the CFR issue.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 741-753 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson