Since you obviously have trouble with the English language, yours and mine, I'll give you some visual aids to help you along.
BEFORE BUSH:
AS SOON AS BUSH TOOK OFFICE:
Posted on 03/29/2002 3:08:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
WASHINGTON --
It looks as if President Bush 's honeymoon is over. He's fine with the American people -- his personal approval rating is still in the 80 percent range -- but his own natives, Republican movement conservatives, are already restless.
Like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan before him, Bush is already being branded as an appeaser of liberals and a sellout on a range of issues dear to the right-side hearts of many of his party's faithful. These are, it must be mentioned, impossible people who, more often than not, prefer to lose on principle than win through compromise.
They hate Washington and all it stands for, which is compromise and government of all the people. Unfortunately for them, presidents, even their own, have to work in this town -- and that means compromising, however reluctantly, with the opposition in Congress and the vast bureaucracies of governance and liberal constituencies.
Like baseball, it happens every spring. This year, even with overwhelming conservative (and liberal, too) support of the president in our officially undeclared war on terrorism, there are the right's gripes of the moment:
The president from Texas, lusting for Hispanic votes in his own state and in California, is too friendly with Mexico, pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants from south of the Rio Grande and San Diego.
He has sold out free-traders by imposing old-fashioned tariffs on the import of foreign steel -- or he is just chasing Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
He may have been holding his nose when he did it, but he signed the campaign-finance reform bill pushed by Democratic senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and apostate Republican senator John McCain of Arizona.
As part of the war effort, he is advocating a 50 percent increase in the United States' minuscule foreign aid program. This one rebukes conservatives who were determined to set in stone the idea that there is no connection between poverty in the poor regions of the world and hatred and terrorism directed at the richest of nations, the United States.
He is pushing Israel to compromise in its endless war against the Palestinians in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
He is pushing education policy and legislation that would increase federal influence in states, counties and towns across the country -- a big no-no to movement conservatives.
He is not pushing tax cuts the way he did during the campaign, partly because war and educational reform cost huge amounts of taxpayer revenues. Most of this was bound to happen, and any ideological president, Republican or Democrat, is eventually forced to betray campaign promises and core constituencies. The only difference this time is that because of continuing public support for military action (and its high costs), Bush is beginning to take more flak from his own kind than from the loyal opposition.
In the conservatives' favorite newspaper, The Washington Times, political columnist Donald Lambro began a news analysis last week by saying: "President Bush's about-face on trade tariffs, stricter campaign-finance regulations and other deviations from Republican doctrine is beginning to anger his conservative foot soldiers but does not seem to be cutting into his overall popularity -- yet."
John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, puts it this way: "We're very disappointed about these new tariffs on steel and lumber. That's two new tax hikes on the American people. ... There's a concern among our members that in his effort to build and keep this coalition for the war, which is certainly needed, he's given Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the forces of big government a free pass."
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, added: "He's been getting a pass from us until now, but the amnesty bill is what tipped it over for us. I agree with Sen. Robert Byrd (a Democrat). This is 'sheer lunacy.' ... A lot of people thought Bush's education bill was terrible. But we didn't rant and rave about it because we wanted to support him on the war. That's changed. The amnesty bill is the hot issue out here. It's out of sync with what grassroots Americans want."
Finally, Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, said: "The danger for us is that Bush may begin to take the conservatives for granted, and you are seeing some signs of that happening with the steel tariff decision, foreign aid and other spending increases in the budget."
So it goes. There is nothing new about this. In the 1970s, William F. Buckley and other movement conservative leaders publicly "suspended" their support of President Richard Nixon because of what they considered his liberal moves toward welfare reform, tariffs and other issues considered part of the liberal domestic agenda -- to say nothing of his reaching out to communist China.
But in the end, Nixon kept them in line by pushing the war in Vietnam beyond reasonable limits. George Bush could accomplish the same political goal of uniting conservative support by continuing to push the war on terrorism into far nooks and crannies of the whole world.
And furthermore, if I give someone my word on something, even if it's a pinhead like Howlin or someone else, then I damn well better stick to it. If I have to stick to those rules than so does GW Bush.
I get it. Under your interpretation of the Constitution, people who have more money or who are more politically involved are not entitled to the same protections under the Constitution as are people who have less money and don't give a rat's ass.
Spoken like a true socialist democrat.
I can see you care about the travesty of abortion, as do I. What are your thoughts on this example? Would we not feel that we deserved our day in court? That it was not for Bubba to take away our chance to argue that the law was constitutional by refusing to sign it simply because he thought it was unconstitutional? Doesn't it seem the opposite is being argued re CFR?
The taking of a life in this nation traditionaly means a punishment or self defense and not a method of birth control. Our laws plainly spell that out. The taking of innocent life is not sanctioned by the Constitution so therefore POTUS would have no Constitutional grounds to think it unconstitutional to stop the killing of innocents. In short a VETO would not be in the Constitutional tradition or interest of preserving innocent life.
Looks like a bunch more babies would die and I doubt the USSC would as much blink. I would rather see the bill signed and none die than a veto signature on the hopes that the USSC would stop it.
Each person elected to national office takes the solem oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is to come before party or political gain. The Dem's ignored it and we cursed them. The GOP did the same and those persons are called the party Parties Saints? If they can not understand this "And will to the best of my abilities uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States" they have no business being there to start with. Upholding does not mean signing leglislation saying otherwise. If there is honsest reservation it is better not to go there that to open a Pandora's Box which possibly can't be shut.
Did Ronald Reagan violate his oath when his DOJ defended Roe v wade when he stated it was an unconstitutional law? You can't have this oath argument both ways. If a president violates his oath by signing a law he feels may be unconstitutional then a president violates his oath by enforcing ANY law he feels may be unconstitutional. If your definition of the oath is correct, Every president from Washington to the present time should have been impeached.
No one is making this facile argument, that I've heard. Cato, you said yourself that it is always a question of which principles will be adhered to in any given situation. It is not a matter of "forgetting" principle, but of making a wise decision as to which principle should predominate.
You disagree with Bush's call on that re CFR, fine. But that doesn't mean those who don't disagree with him are "forgetting principle," any more than it means that Bush "abandoned" the Constitution.
I'm not playing according to your ground rules. I also don't jump to conclusions and think I'm always right, like you. And your political naviete is quite astounding. Now, if you want to ratchet this up any further, feel free. Just direct your ad hominem attacks at others.
How did I make it this far in life without the enlightenment of my friends Howlin and Reagan Man.
I don't know. I guess its time for you to head back to the drawing board and start rethinking your life from scratch. Don't forget to include political science 101, while you're at it.
Since you obviously have trouble with the English language, yours and mine, I'll give you some visual aids to help you along.
BEFORE BUSH:
AS SOON AS BUSH TOOK OFFICE:
Truth be told I am concerned about this Republic. I'm concerned that people with whom I feel a kinship (even chowderheads like Howlin) see a gray area where I see only black and white.
God Bless America.
G'night.
Silly me. I guess that merely changing a word in an unconstitutional bill gets Bush off the hook for being a liar. What a country!
Miller!!!!!!!!!! I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO disappointed.....
Why? If the oath is to be defined as deciding constitutionality then it is an oath that also covers existing law. Otherwise, your definition and understanding falls flat on its face. That is simple logic.
No, you don't.
(Incidentally, your usage of 'ad hominem' is incorrect.)
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.