Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
The most effective posts critical of GWB's signing of CFR have come from strong Bush supporters who are now disappointed. I could post a thousand-word screed about it that would change nobody's minds because of my past strong criticism of the guy. I have praised him six times and damned him a hundred.
The bottom line is that many more of the fellow travellers will peel off, especially when he delivers the next inevitable shot to the heart of conservatives. The ones who continue to blame everyone else for his shortcomings will merely be part of a steadily dwindling core of rats in a sinking lifeboat.
Ditto!
Not solely that way, no. The Constitution gives him other responsibilities:
Article I: "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated"
The President is explicitly prohibited from signing a bill of which he does not approve.
We can certainly agree there.
It never occured to me that you did Jim. Perhaps I didn't have the proper context on your comment. As clarification, I was referring to Bush and all others who signed on to this unconstitutional law.
It would be illogical to think that they could further the cause of liberty by repealing the most fundamental tool for conserving it.
Other than the "d" or "r" after the name, it's getting rather hard to distinguish between the two.
So, you are of the opinion that he signed it in expectation of it being kneecapped in the SCOTUS?
He signed a clearly unConstitutional (unConstitutional by your line of reasoning and mine) bill, yet he did not abrogate his Constitutional duty?
Let me repeat that.
He signed a clearly unConstitutional (unConstitutional by your line of reasoning and mine) bill, yet he did not abrogate his Constitutional duty?
I don't think you understand what duty means. Or honor for that matter.
EBUCK
Well, we could try to get the Democrats to change the name of their party to the American Socialist Party. Then we wouldn't have any Democrats in office at all and everything would be peachy-keen.
Good luck, Jim.
WHERE do you get this notion? Is the Judicial Branch the only one that can READ? The Constitution was written to be understood by EVERYBODY. The Founders appear to have thought that Joe Sixpack was capable of rational, coherent thought, unlike politicians and lawyers of today, and could reasonably be expected to KNOW when the legislature and executive were in violation. The Supremes ASSUMED that power in 1803 or so, in Marbury v Madison, but it was NEVER assigned to them and ALL BRANCHES of the federal government were supposed to avoid doing UnConstitutional things. If you REALLY BELIEVE what you just wrote, your ignorance is appalling.
The scattergun approach would defeat my congressman, Lipinski (D), who voted against CFR, and elect Republicans like Fitzgerald (R) who voted for it. Not a strategy I would embrace personally.
Every President has signed unconstitutional legislation.
I'm not proud of him, he could have done better both constituionallly and poitically IMHO.
Fortunately, my disappointment isn't exacerbated by a lack of historical context.
If someone believes there was a President who never signed an unconstitutional bill, I hope they will enlighten me so I can adjust my standard.
To achieve the end, keeping rats out of office, the preferred means are hobbling out 1st amendment rights?
This is not a "keep rats out of office" bill, it's a "keep incumbents in office" bill and there are almost as many of them as there are us now.
EBUCK
This is really a strange arguement. In the first place if alot of FReepers were known dog kickers, then why not start a thread about it? We discuss everything else here?
In the second place discussing politics and politicians is what we do here. If we want to discuss our motives for being pro or anti Bush why shouldn't we? I don't understand why you are so angry?
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.