Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
<--SNIP-->
" You really ought to think about it before accusing an honest and honorable President of violating his oath"....
I think it's really rather low for you to make innuendos when you are short on ammunition, brother. Let's don't even consider what Rowdee says or thinks--let's go straight to the horses', er the President's, mouth, shall we?
From the White House web page: ..."However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."...
I AM STATING HE VIOLATED HIS OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES using his own words and state of mind to show his intent....his use of the words 'serious concerns are bogus because he is all too eager to fall back on letting the courts figure it out....and this from the man who assured us he would appoint strict constructionists! BUT, it isn't just him--the sumsabeaches in the Halls of Shame are every bit as much to blame.
Brother, continue to tell yourself he really didn't mean it, that it really is ok, yada yada yada....in time, you may actually believe it. That Constitution really is just an old piece of paper; it was just a 'guide'; it really did mean for government to cover every aspect of our lives......
EBUCK
EBUCK
The Constitutional basis for accusing the President of violating his oath? If a President signs a bill he believes has some "flaws" and about which he has "reservations" he has just violated his Constitutional oath of office. No citation to any provision of the Constitution for that whopper.
And you say I'm short on ammunition? Did you or did you not accuse the President of violating his oath? The basis for your accusation is your fantasy that if a President signs a bill passed by Congress that he believes has "flaws" and about which he has "reservations" he has violated his oath of office? You think there is any President who hasn't done that? Hey, I'm not the one a few rounds short of a full clip here.
So impeach President Bush. I hope you'll like the government you get.
Okay I give up... just what did I read into it?
Assumptions, assumptions..... Yep.
But I do concur with your assessment about JRs position. One of which I think he's held for sometime now.
They can never answer the question of a president enforcing laws signed by previous administrations. If their definition of the "oath" is as they define it, a president that enforces the Brady Bill, the voting rights act and a host of bills that Republican Presidents have never failed to enforce but are on record as saying they are unconstitutional, then by their own definition they are also "traitors" including Ronal Reagan.
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.