Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
Rather than crash the pro-Bush orgy threads, I thought I would honor the requests of the "we must support the president at all costs" crowd and let them bask in their Republican utopia in ignorant bliss. Consider this a thread that seeks actual debate and discussion concerning the "accomplishments" of our current president. Feel free to voice your support or opposition to the president's policies. After all, dissension, even among conservatives, can be healthy.
This thread is in response to the blatant display of sheer ignorance on the part of some FReepers. There have been several threads initiated lately that have included some rather disturbing posts. Without naming names, I would like to share some of those with you:
"I guess when you want to get MEANINGFUL CFR you avoid the obvious veto bait and keep the issue out of the dem's hands, so that hopefully you can get a Senate elected and some JUDGES appointed.This person supports the president so much that he or she is willing to overlook the clear unconstitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act. The president ignored his oath of office and deliberately signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation as part of some well-concealed strategy? Please.I guess when you are running a WAR you don't have time for this stuff that is nothing more than petty political junk. Instead, you get the bill where the SC can decide it."
"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.Translation: President Bush is smarter than his critics. We should trust him without so much as a whimper of criticism regarding any unconstitutional legislation he may force down our throats. He hasn't betrayed anyone but the American people, so back off.He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.
And he hasn't betrayed anyone."
"There are many of us who have chosen to STILL support the President even though we may disagree with some of the things he's done. Where is the reality in expecting the President to agree with you on absolutely everything he does? It's nowhere. Because that reality does not exist no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that it does.Perhaps the "one issue" that dismays so many people is the fact that the president we are expected to support has violated the very solemn oath he swore to keep, that being his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Say what you want about Clinton. Play the "What if Gore were elected" game if you want. That was then, this is now. We have a president in office who essentially told America, "This law may be unconstitutional but I'm signing it anyway."But consider this. Think back two years ago... and now think of what the alternative could have been. Cripe, even Rosie O'Donnell admits she didn't like GWB, but even she supports him now. I am simply amazed that it takes one issue, one issue, to dismay so many people."
Has anyone read the statement on FreeRepublic's main page? It reads as follows:
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.I always thought standing for smaller government meant just that, whether that means criticizing a Democrat or Republican administration. We need to ask ourselves one question: are we for smaller government and more freedom? If the answer is "Yes," then act accordingly. Let's not fall into the trap that says we must support the liberal policies of a president at all costs simply because he's not as liberal as a Democrat.
Thanks for calling me "childish" though. Like getting carded at the liquor store, it makes me feel younger.
Thank you sir! Why is this concept so hard for others to grasp? Personally don't think that 1/8 of these whiners voted for President Bush in the first place. Just much bloviating!
Taking the oath clause and trying to convert it into some kind of Constitutional duty to veto or refuse to enforce a law produces absurd results, which tells you the argument is flawed, which is why not a single S. Ct. has has even mentioned it. People are taking a policy dispute and trying to make a constitutional crisis out of it, which it ain't.
"Rather than crash the pro-Bush orgy threads, I thought I would honor the requests of the "we must support the president at all costs" crowd and let them bask in their Republican utopia in ignorant bliss."
Nice opening, in light of the sentence that follows: "Consider this a thread that seeks actual debate and discussion concerning the "accomplishments" of our current president."
That's just about the most two-faced, disingenous thing that I've seen around for quite sometime. You seek "actual debate" by insulting those whom you wish to debate?
Or is the actual truth the fact that you seek NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER, and instead, you just want to have a thread where you can host a Bush supporter bashing party all of your own?
That's the way that this vanity of yours reads.
So tell me, why should anyone attempt to discuss anything with some jackass who insults them with every word that he writes?
Haven't you now become that which you criticize?
You don't seek debate in any form, you wrote an ignorant, insulting, flame-bait, and are smuggly patting yourself in the back because of the apparent approval of the Moderators. So sit back, be proud of your shortcomings, and bask in your absolute lack of class.
"This thread is in response to the blatant display of sheer ignorance on the part of some FReepers."
You want sheer ignorance? Invest in a mirror.
Buy one that reflects on both sides, you'll need it for each side of your face.
This "whiner" not only voted for him, I gave him over $500, I wrote letters to the editor for him, one even got a whole section of his website printed...you know that RAT talking points list about his record in Texas on the environment, etc, well, someone sent that in so they printed his reply that I submitted. I worked hard for him. Don't be so sure you aren't losing his base.
Not so, the SG vets the cases to argue for or against or to stay out of.
Okay...I give...what?
I've scanned 591 replies and haven't seen the answer so I apologize if I missed it.
Just curious...
That is, after all, just one lil' on part of what he swore on a Bible to protect and defend. And by making the statement he did before he signed the damn thing, he knew he was wrong.....and yet he did it.....he passed the buck off....rather Clintonesque, I think.....and it appears his supporters grovel on their knees just as the Perverts defenders did.
Set yourself loose from party and vote and support people who actually do know what the Constitution is about and who actually do love the Country.
I presume you also believed the bit about appoint strict constructionists, too? I mean, he IS such a constitutional scholar, right?
Sheesh. You have a lot to learn.
Your citation does not support your argument. There is no Constitutional requirement that a President veto a bill he doesn't like.
That is not my argument. As quoted at #562, Bush admits constitutional reservations, yet will not veto. Thus, he violates his oath, imo.
There is no Constitutional requirment that the President perform his own review for constitutionality independent of SCOTUS and Congress. That's what's interesting about Marbury v. Madison - whether there would be a review and if so by who were issues the Framers left us to work out later because the Constitution doesn't say. The oath of office does not address this issue.
-- He didn't 'faithfully execute' or 'protect & defend', imo.
Claiming a President who signs a bill with a provison later held unconstitutional has violated his oath of office is pretty lame - nothing in the Constitution or the SCOTUS cases suggests any such thing.
He admitted its constitutional problems before he signed. Learn to live with that truth.
The Solicitor General is the only officer of the United States required by statute to be "learned in the law."(3) He is one of only two people (the other being the Vice President) with formal offices in two branches of government.(4) And perhaps more than any other position in government, the Solicitor General has important traditions of deference to all three branches.
The Solicitor General is of course an Executive Branch officer, reporting to the Attorney General, and ultimately to the President, in whom our Constitution vests all of the Executive power of the United States. Yet as the officer charged with, among other things, representing the interests of the United States in the Supreme Court, the position carries with it responsibilities to the other branches of government as well. As a result, by long tradition the Solicitor General has been accorded a large degree of independence.
To the Congress, Solicitors General have long assumed the responsibility, except in rare instances, of defending the constitutionality of enactments, so long as a defense can reasonably be made.(5) With respect to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General has often been called "the Tenth Justice."(6) But alas, although I get to participate a lot, I do not get a vote (and in some important cases I could really use one). No, the Solicitor General's special relationship to the Court is not one of privilege, but of duty -- to respect and honor the principle of stare decisis, to exercise restraint in invoking the Court's jurisdiction, and to be absolutely scrupulous in every representation made. As one of my predecessors, Simon Sobeloff, once described the mission of the office:
The Solicitor General is not a neutral, he is an advocate; but an advocate for a client whose business is not merely to prevail in the instant case. My client's chief business is not to achieve victory, but to establish justice.(7)
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.