FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?

Me

[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.

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."

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.

"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.

He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.

And he hasn't betrayed anyone."

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.

"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.

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."

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."

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.

[colorado tanker]

Your citation does not support your argument. There is no Constitutional requirement that a President veto a bill he doesn't like. 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. 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.

Thanks for calling me "childish" though. Like getting carded at the liquor store, it makes me feel younger.

[Bitwhacker]

Certainly not. The point was made that Bush should sign CFR because the House and Senate already did, therefore it's 'not his fault' that it is now destined to go to the Supreme Court.

My point was that he Bush had the opportunity to veto something he considered to be unconstitutional and didn't. It matters not what happened in Congress.

The reason I get so worked up about it is because during the primary and in the general election, then-candidate Bush repeatedly vowed to veto any bill that came before him containing language that infringed on First Amendment protections. Well, here it is, and what he said he'd do is not what happened.

Now consider what happened on the talking head shows tonight. Dick Morris on Fox was representative of how the Dems will play this thing. Morris said that the GOP didn't give Jeffords near enough of what he wanted and caused him to bolt; now they are dissing McCain by giving him what he wanted but not letting him in on the ceremony. The upshot being that regardless of what really happened, the pundits are still intent on bashing Bush no matter what he did.....

[BigWaveBetty]

If the election were tomorrow I would vote for him, even though I've been disappointed in him on several issues including CFR. But I'm not about to throw him over the side.

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!

[Bitwhacker]

Pointing out serious constitutional problems with signing CFR is not whining. The issue here is not so much what he did with CFR but what he will do when confronted with a bill that addresses an issure that the people really care about and the President is confronted with another tough choice.

[colorado tanker]

Excellent point, which leads to another question. The duty of the Solicitor General, as the lawyer for the President and the Executive Branch, is to argue to SCOTUS to uphold the constitutionaliy of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. If the S.G. personally believes a law is unconstitutional but argues to the contrary in accordance with his duty, has he violated his oath of office?

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.

[TLBSHOW]

The DEMOCRATS/rats must be destroyed in November.

[LiberteeBell]

Great list at #485! Kinda puts it in perspective doesn't it?

[Bitwhacker]

If the S.G. personally believes a law is unconstitutional but argues to the contrary in accordance with his duty, has he violated his oath of office?

That's an excellent question of ethics that I had not considered, and must admit that I overlooked.

But Pres. Bush was the one who campaigned on a presidential veto of any bill that contained language that stepped on First Amendment protections, and it is more important than a simple policy difference.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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."

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.

[RAT Patrol]

Personally don't think that 1/8 of these whiners voted for President Bush in the first place. Just much bloviating!

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.

[RAT Patrol]

Like beauty, I guess it depends on who's doing the looking.

[Askel5]

Nice post.

[Texasforever]

The duty of the Solicitor General, as the lawyer for the President and the Executive Branch, is to argue to SCOTUS to uphold the constitutionaliy

Not so, the SG vets the cases to argue for or against or to stay out of.

[dixiechick2000]

"Guess what the democrats call it?"

Okay...I give...what?
I've scanned 591 replies and haven't seen the answer so I apologize if I missed it.
Just curious...

[Rowdee]

Why was I expecting nothing other than that from you? LMBO! What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of othe right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" do you and the President not understand?

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?

[RightOnline]

Re: Your #11: How dare you go and make sense here??? How dare you show such insight and display common sense??? How DARE you show a sense of sensible, highly-plausible "strategic thinking"???

Sheesh. You have a lot to learn.

[tpaine]

I found the language, and cited where. I refuse to post it, because of your childish demands. -- And I concur with Rowdees latest post, #562, on the oath issue. -- Bush has tarred himself with his own words.

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.

[Texasforever]

From Seth Waxman former solicitor General

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⁾