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 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 741-753 next last
To: Bitwhacker
I agree that Bush campaigned against the provisions in the CFR bill. I agreed with Bush then and I think this is a bad bill. The real problem here is not a constitutional crisis, but that Bush signed a bill he said he wouldn't sign and which I didn't want him to sign.
The fact is had the Pubbies not lost so many Senate seats and had Jeffords not jumped, the bill would never have hit Bush's desk.
So why'd he sign it? Because Enron made Bush and Republicans vulnerable to the charge that he would veto CFR to keep the soft money millions flowing from the oil patch. CFR does not resonate with ordinary voters but Enron does. So the political calculus changed from last year and Bush signed the bill to keep the House from going Dem and give the Pubbies a chance at retaking the Senate. Bush figures taking such a serious political hit on CFR isn't worth it if the SCOTUS is likely to throw out the bad part anyway.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Lay, Skilling and Fastow for their greed in deciding to take a boring gas company and convert it into a commodity speculation scheme that went bad, which they covered up with securities fraud. And for which, perversely, Arthur Andersen will be destroyed while Enron lives on in Chapter 11. Blame the law of unintended consequences.
Comment #602 Removed by Moderator
To: Texasforever
Thanks for the post. I agree. The S.G. will defend a law if a defense can "reasonably be made" even if he has personal reservations about that law - and none of that violates anybody's oath.
To: sheltonmac
Hey Ya'll! Check out this website for all the Bush Bashin!
www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/slick1.html
604
posted on
03/28/2002 4:16:31 PM PST
by
Draakan
To: colorado tanker
This could lead to a very interesting case. You could have 3 former Solicitors General arguing 3 different cases. From McCain who has retained Seth Waxman to argue the entire bill is constitutional to Ken Starr also a former SG arguing that the entire bill is unconstitutional to Ted Olson only defending those parts of the bill he has determined are constitutional.
To: hobbes1
The argument that will go with it, will be, we should be conducting the peoples business, not chasing this crap. Several senators led by Lott, have already advanced this argument, about Energy and Spending bills not being passed while CFR was Done.
As if Trent Lost should be taken all that seriously anymore!
P.S. I, too, believe the President shirked his duty to the Constitution by failing to veto CFR. (It does not suggest any preference for an imperial or even monarchical Presidency to say that the implicit mandate in their oaths of office binds Congress against writing unconstitutional legislation or, failing thus, the President against signing unconstitutional legislation into law.)
John McVain can now (I've said this before on other threads but it is worth repeating and emphasising) play Pepsi to Mr. Bush's Coca-Cola and crow, The other guy just blinked!
To: Texasforever
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. Texas hype. - Jackson was unchallenged in his refusal to obey a USSC order on removing the cherokee. -- And if Bush Sr. would have flat out refused to enforce Brady on constitutional grounds, -- he could have been a winner. -- Like father, like son. -- This Bush has lost his chance too.
607
posted on
03/28/2002 4:29:47 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: Rowdee; tpaine
OK, so now you're arguing the absolutist position on the First Amendment. Any restriction on campaign contributions is unconsitutional. So, Congress violated their oaths by passing the first restriction 30 years ago. SCOTUS violated their oaths by upholding the constitutionality of most of the restrictions. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have all violated their oaths either by signing or enforcing the unconstitutional restrictions.
And as for me, I don't understand the Constitution, I grovel at Bush's feet, I'm no better than the "Pervert's" defenders, I don't love the Constitution as you do and I'm not one of those who "actually love their country." And I guess you would say, since I also took the oath, that I've now violated my oath.
BTW, since you are on expert at who does and does not love this country, I assume that you too wore the uniform and took the oath.
Well, my, my, my. Your political party isn't very big, is it? And it looks like ain't gonna be many folks makin' it to your heaven once you sort out all the oath violators, etc.
P.S. Don't worry about whether strict constructionists will be appointed to the bench - once you've turned Bush out of the White House and given the Dems a solid Senate majority, it won't be an issue.
To: RAT Patrol
"Like beauty, I guess it depends on who's doing the looking."There's no beauty here, just ugly.
To: colorado tanker
Good post.
To: tpaine
Texas hype. - Jackson was unchallenged in his refusal to obey a USSC order on removing the cherokee. -- And if Bush Sr. would have flat out refused to enforce Brady on constitutional grounds, -- he could have been a winner. -- Like father, like son. -- This Bush has lost his chance too Tpaine once again you snatch darkness from the jaws of clarity. I will try once again real slow just for you. Should All presidents, NOT JUST BUSH, have been impeached for ENFORCING not (IGNORING as your lame attempt to change the subject attempted), laws they consider unconstitutional.
To: Texasforever
I think my money goes on Ted Olson. Anybody who could "steal an election" (this is sarcasm folks) ought to be able to win a little old issue like CFR.
To: Luis Gonzalez
Gee, thanks. I don't know what to say. I've been sweating in this asbestos jumpsuit for hours with all the flaming going on.
To: colorado tanker
P.S. Don't worry about whether strict constructionists will be appointed to the bench - once you've turned Bush out of the White House and given the Dems a solid Senate majority, it won't be an issue. Yep, if they liked the Warren court they are really gonna like Ginsberg court.
To: colorado tanker
Oh, dear....are your lil' ol feelin's hurt?
Try reading the Constitution and reading the Federalist Papers at the same time....it makes it quite clear that what these sumabeaches are doing now, and have been doing for ages, is unconstitutional.....the Founders provided a method for to change the Constitution--and all these bastards are too spineless to stand up and use it!!!!
Hell yes, they were all unconstitutional!!! And had the citizens of this country followed the admonishments of the Founding Fathers that eternal viligance is the price of freedom, the form of government is a republic if we can keep it, giving up an ounce of freedom for an ounce of security indicates the undeservedness of having either.....I daresay we wouldn't be in the socialist state we are in....and yes, we are in a socialist state.
615
posted on
03/28/2002 4:41:28 PM PST
by
Rowdee
To: Texasforever
The Ginsberg Court." AARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! Is it too late to join the Penitentes for Good Friday?
To: colorado tanker
What party are you referring to? I belong to NO party....I do not put party over country as you and so many others do. I vote for the person I believe most closely adheres to the Constitution, who isn't known to lie, has constant principles, etc., and closely resembles my thoughts on policies or issues.
617
posted on
03/28/2002 4:44:43 PM PST
by
Rowdee
To: colorado tanker
How weird, --- at #601, you admit that bush did exactly as we have charged. - Thank you, --- end of 'discussion'.
I served '55/'58 with the 503/502 infantry regiments, 11th Airborne Div.
618
posted on
03/28/2002 4:45:18 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: Rowdee
Try reading the Constitution and reading the Federalist Papers at the same time It seems to me that Colorado has not only read it, but understands it. I realize that getting your constitutional knowledge from a Denny's place mat makes you think you are in line for honorary Founder but Colorado has wiped the floor with all comers with fact, reason, logic and a civility that you do not deserve.
To: Rowdee
My lil' ol' feelings hurt? Not at all. My guy's in the White House and he's makin' all the right moves to stay there a good long time. My guys have a majority of the Supremes. My guys control the House. And my guys are gettin' ready to take back the Senate.
And your guy don't need to book no tickets for Washington in this lifetime.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 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