Replies

Listen, I understand your point. Bush did it to keep his job and the jobs of his cahorts (or as you may put, to keep conservatives in power). Am I missing the mark on that?

And what I'm saying is that our First Ammendment rights are more important than his job. And judging by the turmoil created here he may loose his job because he was trying to keep his job.

We'll have to wait and see how the SCOTUS rules on this.

Question for you. Do you think that the office of the pres. has a duty to the Constitution? If so can the pres shirk that duty in order to keep his popularity intact regardless of whether or not he thinks that the SCOTUS will act as a backstop?

EBUCK

Of course the President has a duty to the Constitution. The Constitution, however, is silent on the issue of review - what branch, if any has a duty to review legislation for constitutionality? You can make policy arguments that its Congress's duty not to pass unconstitutional legislation, or that its the Prez's duty not to sign it. But since Marbury v. Madison its been accepted that it is primarily SCOTUS's duty to perform the constitutionality review.

We conservatives agree that the 60-day ban is unconstitutional, but that result is not guaranteed if you review all 500+ volumes of the Supreme Court Reporter. Some limits on campaign ad money are constitutional according to SCOTUS and have been in place for 30 years. Commericial speech, TV ads, has never been given the same protections as other forms of speech. And if you actually read the bill you will see there are lots of ways individuals and members of groups can and will influence elections during the 60-day period - the claim people are silenced is just wrong.

I agree this is a bad bill, as does the President, apparently. But it tinkers with restrictions that have been around for decades. It's not the end of the world. I have a pissificity meter that regularly goes off when the government restricts my rights. My pissificity meter is at about 3 out of 10 right now.

OK, I know what you're going to reply. So, here's my response in advance. You're right, Bush made a political call and is no longer pure of the conservative spirit. So, let's split the conservative movement and nominate an ideologically pure third party candidate. Lets do to Dubya what we did to his dad. Lets make him a one termer. Lets elect Gore, Hillary or Edwards. Lets raise taxes. Lets have more restrictive gun control. Lets quit being "unilateralist" and give in to the Europeans and quit the war on terror now - heck, maybe next time the terrorists will get the Capitol, after all it took them two tries to get the WTC. Lets have another go at a Middle East "peace" settlement - maybe we can cause all out war in the Middle East this time. Lets sign the global warming treaty and sink our economy. Let's expand Medicare and bankrupt Social Security 15 years faster. Lets protect the environment by mandating strict fuel economy standards and drive up the price of gasoline and electricity 2-3 times. Lets quit coddling the military, they don't need a pay raise or all that expensive high tech equipment. Lets have another corrupt administration and impeachment trial.

Happy now?

>...I think this bill favors conservatives...
>We'll have to wait and see how the SCOTUS rules on this

I don't think the angry people here are angry about whether this CFR stuff "favors" conservatives or liberals. I think people are angry that it is yet another *snip* off of the Constitution. It's possible to imagine any number of bills which might favor conservatives. But if they erode the Constitution, not many people here would favor them.

If we're laying bets, I bet SCOTUS never deals with CFR, and, if it does, I be conservatives come away from the encounter feeling the the 'rats did after the election...

Mark W.