Replies

Go back and read the rest of what I wrote (or did I exhaust your vocabulary?)...You say the campaign finance law is unconstitutional. How do you know? That's your opinion. But who gave you the right to declare what laws are constitutional and which are not? In fact, who gave the President the authority to declare what bills are constitutional and which are not? Seems to me the Constitution you claim to respect gives that authority to the judiciary. I had this debate with someone on FR when the bill was signed, and he actually said that a President had the authority to ignore whatever LAWS(!) he thought were unconstitutional. It seems that kind of exercise of power is called "dictatorship."

Go read the Constitution. Or barring that, take a Government 101 class at your local JC.

>>Go back and read the rest of what I wrote (or did I exhaust your vocabulary?)...You say the campaign finance law is unconstitutional. How do you know? That's your opinion. But who gave you the right to declare what laws are constitutional and which are not? In fact, who gave the President the authority to declare what bills are constitutional and which are not? Seems to me the Constitution you claim to respect gives that authority to the judiciary. I had this debate with someone on FR when the bill was signed, and he actually said that a President had the authority to ignore whatever LAWS(!) he thought were unconstitutional. It seems that kind of exercise of power is called "dictatorship."<<

You're beautiful when you're angry. HA!

Please explain to me, O Enlightened One, where it says the president MUST sign any bill that he disagrees with; that his hands are tied? Please explain this concept to me.

GWB decried CFR on the campaign trail, then made jokes to the press about how quickly he would sign it.

But I guess he had no choice. Am I to understand that this is what you're saying?

My2Cents said: "In fact, who gave the President the authority to declare what bills are constitutional and which are not? "

Bills are unsigned legislation. The President's oath of office obligates him not to sign if the bill is unConstitutional. Since every defendant has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, the President is justified in prosecuting cases in accordance with the laws and with the expectation that appeals will be filed.

There needs to be a way for someone like Ashcroft to prosecute gun laws based on the language of the law, but with a footnote indicating that the law is thought unconstitutional.

Since higher courts choose which cases to hear and which not, they could choose to hear a case prior to trial when the Attorney General has indicated doubts about the Constitutionality.

Although heartened by the government's filing in Emerson upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, I believe that the higher court should be encouraged to review Emerson because other District Courts have made ridiculous rulings regarding the Second Amendment.

If the Supreme Court agrees with Ashcroft, then most of 20,000 gun laws are null and void. If the Supreme Court disagrees, then the stage is set for the Second American Revolution. Emerson will be needed for Militia service during the Second American Revolution, so he will need his right to keep and bear arms restored, since he has been found not guilty of any crime in state court.

I have previously stated that I have withdrawn my consent to be governed due to the infringements of my right to keep and bear arms. I will continue to withhold my consent until Emerson has his rights back. And all of the other people who have been jailed for keeping and bearing arms. It is unfortunate that nothing will bring back Weaver's family or the children of Waco.