Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bitwhacker
Yes, there is. The Unconstitutionality of it, and the Supremes decision will be pointed out, LOUDLY, everytime the issue comes up.

If you were awake, you would notice the beginning of the accompanying argument.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.

53 posted on 03/28/2002 8:29:13 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: hobbes1
Yes, there is. The Unconstitutionality of it, and the Supremes decision will be pointed out, LOUDLY, everytime the issue comes up.

If you were awake, you would notice the beginning of the accompanying argument.The argument that will go with it, will be, we should be conducting the peoples business, not chasing this crap.


I was awake, saw your argument, and it only highlights the fact that what the President did was supremely cynical. If the signing of CFR was great principle, then he should have campaigned on it, instead of the other way 'round.

And the bill has not been declared unconstitutional, yet, and you have no guarantee (or recourse) if it isn't.

Nice touch, though, calling Constitutional issues and concern over them 'crap'....
92 posted on 03/28/2002 8:49:34 AM PST by Bitwhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

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!
606 posted on 03/28/2002 4:26:39 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson