User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 6:32:54 AM EDT
[#1]
While the bill sucks and George shouldn't have signed it, it is grossly unconstitutional. Remember that the courts still give the First Amendment teeth, unlike their treatment of the Second Amendment. Bet the "campaign finance reform" bill gets bounced as soon as it sees a courthouse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 6:38:13 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: While the bill sucks and George shouldn't have signed it, it is grossly unconstitutional. Remember that the courts still give the First Amendment teeth, unlike their treatment of the Second Amendment. Bet the "campaign finance reform" bill gets bounced as soon as it sees a courthouse. It's funny how things like that work--PARTS of the law will get bounced, but the whole law will not be thrown out. Beyond that, money will have to be spent to challenge the law--fighting in the supreme court is expensive. You and I get to foot the bill for the government's defense of the unconstitutional law, via tax money. Fun stuff, huh? I'm also sick of hearing about the people (and politicans) saying "Don't worry, parts of this bill are obviously unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will cut it down to size." Hello? These people took an OATH to support and defend the constitution, not make laws willy nilly and count on the Supreme Court to do it for them. Bush has lost my 2004 vote. Nothing he can do between now and then will repair what he has done today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 6:54:24 AM EDT
[#3]
Don't forget Bush took the same "oath". He should of cited that and refused to sign the bill......And some others he has signed. It's all a sign of the times...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 6:57:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: I'm also sick of hearing about the people (and politicans) saying "Don't worry, parts of this bill are obviously unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will cut it down to size." Hello? These people took an OATH to support and defend the constitution, not make laws willy nilly and count on the Supreme Court to do it for them. You are right, but your objections are like objecting to the truck which is about to wrongly run you over. You can say you're right, and you *are* right, but the truck still flattens you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 7:12:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: True. However, the government passes unconstitutional laws all the time. Until a court says it is unconstitutional, it isn't *really* unconstitutional. Yes, but in those instances, the major supporters of the law don't go around saying "Don't worry, parts of this are unconstitutional, and will be struck down" while trying to drum up support for the bill! I find there to be a distinct difference between politicans trying to pass laws they do not believe to be unconctitutional, though are (gun laws are a good example, since EVERYONE seems to have a different understanding of the 2nd amendment) and passing a law they admit to KNOWING to be unconstitutional. It's the difference between ignorance and intent. In my opinion, the intent firmly places this into the category of "treason." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 7:21:03 AM EDT
[#6]
I know the game Bush is playing, and can't say I like it much.
All the political talking heads say he is taking Democratic issues off the table by giving the Dems most of what they want. Its a political ploy to win back the Senate after Jim "Benedict Arnold" Jeffords defection. IMO, its a roll of the dice, and demonstates why I would never survive in politics. I have these charachter flaws called "principles" that I could NOT surrender for political gain. Alls I can say is IF it works, and Repugs regain the Senate, Bush had BETTER get back to the Conservative agenda, IN SPADES. My estimation is that for his entire Presidency to date, Bush's tactic has been to stay one step ahead of the Dems, and never give them a large target to fire at. If it doesn't work, and he doesn't regain teh Senate, he's got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. THINK OF THIS THO - IF HE CAN REGAIN THE SENATE, WE HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF LETTING THE 1994 CRIME BILL SUNSET. Is that good enuf reason to pass what he KNOWS to be an unConstitutional law? You be the judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 7:25:22 AM EDT
[#7]
I disagree with him signing it, but I can understand why. I have to beleive he knows that the supreme court will strike it down, and that this is a stratigic political move, he is denying the democrats an issue to run on, they have no recession, no enron connections, and no complaints about this. I think this is an unfortunate part of a long term plan to screw over the DNC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 7:47:20 AM EDT
[#8]
This is truly the first time that I have been really disappointed in George W. Bush, as either as Governor or as President.
To knowingly and willfully sign a constitutionally-flawed bill is the height of stupidity. It is the equivalent of a judge sentencing an innocent defendant to jail with the cavalier comment 'Oh, some higher court, some day, will release the defendant, so it's not my problem.' We elect Presidents to make the hard and costly decisions that must be made by a chief executive. Apparently, the 'Buck Stops Here' desk plaque that Pres. Truman used to keep on his desk has been moved by Pres. Bush to the Chief Justice's desk at the US Supreme Court! A sad day for the Republic, indeed! There is a bright side, however, these reforms will not go into effect until [u]after[/u] this November's elections. So, 'revenge is a dish best served in November.' [:D] Eric The(SmallConsolation)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:00:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: I'm waiting for all the "Republicans are great, and Bush is our friend!" types to come out of the woodwork and tell me why Bush hasn't stabbed every freedom loving (and not just gun owning) american in the back. First tell us why Ron Paul voted for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:01:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: A sad day for the Republic, indeed! Whats a republic? [;)] Ever notice it is the Republicans which cave in and try to get on the good graces of the Demorats? And it is the Demorats who never try to placate the Republicans. They go to the extreme to crap on the Constitution. Arrrg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:09:06 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: There is a bright side, however, these reforms will not go into effect until [u]after[/u] this November's elections. [:D] Eric The(SmallConsolation)Hun[>]:)] Politically POTUS 'had' to sign this bill. Politics stinks. Much of the bill will have been struck-down by the courts before this bill matters. Do we stand on principle or do we enhance the Republican position in the coming elections ? To me these are the sorry-ass questions. I belive the President should have signed this bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:10:56 AM EDT
[#12]
Don't worry, I'm sure he won't sign the 2004 Assault Weapon Ban due out one month prior to the Novemeber election.[rolleyes]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:21:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Well I be darned. All you guys who think the NRA is worthless oughtta read this:
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/campaign_finance[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:39:53 AM EDT
[#14]
[b]God Bless The NRA![/b]
The folks who advise Pres. Bush better remember that a whole lotta Republicans are [b]Life Members of the NRA![/b] [b]But we are not, however, Life Members of the GOP![/b] Still, I ain't burning up my party credentials, yet! Eric The(StillGOP)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:41:59 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Well I be darned. All you guys who think the NRA is worthless oughtta read this: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/campaign_finance[/url] Sure the NRA sued: it's their ox being gored here. They won't be able to run any TV ads under this law, so they naturally go to court to fight it. How does this prove their steadfastness in the RKBA fight? We're going to see lawsuits from the AFL-CIO and other lefty groups as well. Does that mean that they are on our side too? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:43:26 AM EDT
[#16]
So everyone thinks the Supreme Court will knock this down because of it is unconstitutional? ha, Ha, big fat HAAA.
Just like they should have knocked down the 1994 bill because it is unconstitutional. Same for all the other gun laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:46:06 AM EDT
[#17]
Yeah, but [b]Jarhead_22[/b], does the NRA have any other choice?
And thank God they're doing it on [u]our[/u] behalf, 'cause I know I won't be filing any lawsuits based on this law. Eric The(IGotMyOwnCrapToHandle)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:48:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Bush has lost my 2004 vote. Nothing he can do between now and then will repair what he has done today. That's the same mentality that gave us 8 years of Clinton. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 8:54:56 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Yeah, but [b]Jarhead_22[/b], does the NRA have any other choice? You're right, they don't have any other choice, but that doesn't make them noble or steadfast for having done it. It was done out of necessity, not nobility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:16:07 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: First tell us why Ron Paul voted for it. Didn't catch that when I went through the list of who voted for it. My response: Then he's a backstabbing son of a bitch, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:23:56 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: That's the same mentality that gave us 8 years of Clinton. Give me a break. You're telling me that I should continute to vote for someone that is doing more to curtail my freedom than defend it (PATRIOT Act, and Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution anyone?) because the alternative MIGHT be worse? I'm sick and tired of trying to vote for the candidate that will harm me least, instead of helping me the most. A wise man once said "A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil." Bush supports the AW ban. Bush supports the hicap ban (and supports banning the importation of pre-94 hicaps.) Bush supports the 86 machine gun ban. Bush supports "closing the gun show loophole." Bush has signed this Incumbent Protection Bill/1st Amendment Destriction Act. I'm through with him. My vote in 2004 goes to a 3rd party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:31:35 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I know the game Bush is playing, and can't say I like it much. All the political talking heads say he is taking Democratic issues off the table by giving the Dems most of what they want. Its a political ploy to win back the Senate after Jim "Benedict Arnold" Jeffords defection. IMO, its a roll of the dice, and demonstates why I would never survive in politics. I have these charachter flaws called "principles" that I could NOT surrender for political gain. Alls I can say is IF it works, and Repugs regain the Senate, Bush had BETTER get back to the Conservative agenda, IN SPADES. My estimation is that for his entire Presidency to date, Bush's tactic has been to stay one step ahead of the Dems, and never give them a large target to fire at. If it doesn't work, and he doesn't regain teh Senate, he's got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. THINK OF THIS THO - IF HE CAN REGAIN THE SENATE, WE HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF LETTING THE 1994 CRIME BILL SUNSET. Is that good enuf reason to pass what he KNOWS to be an unConstitutional law? You be the judge. [i]"Thunk" (sound of [b]g-man[/b] nailing it.)[/i] Those who respect the law and like sausage should never watch either one being made. Bush is disarming Daschle (and McCain) with a law that will have NO EFFECT on us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:33:55 AM EDT
[#23]
When the prez and members of congress openly admit that a bill is unconstitutional, and then sign it into law anyway, well, I think that is a pretty good sign that the constitution is dead. Nothing will be done about things like this until people are uncomfortable. As long as the masses have TV, a place to sleep, and full bellies, things are only going to get worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:43:21 AM EDT
[#24]
Dittos to garandman.
Politics is always a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Otherwise Jesus Christ would always appear at the top of every ballot![:D] Eric The(AndHe'sANon-Resident!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:51:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Sure the NRA sued: it's their ox being gored here. They won't be able to run any TV ads under this law, so they naturally go to court to fight it. How does this prove their steadfastness in the RKBA fight? We're going to see lawsuits from the AFL-CIO and other lefty groups as well. Does that mean that they are on our side too? I don't think so. Well, I think the lefty groups *are* on our side for the purposes of this issue, and I'm happy to have their help. Just because they are on the left doesn't mean they are *always* wrong on every single issue. (Just most of them.) The NRA has a lot of money to run ads during elections to help elect pro-gun candidates, or at least candidates that are not anti-gun. You don't think that is valuable in the continuing RKBA? You must really hate the NRA. They aren't perfect by a long shot, but they are powerful, respected, and more importantly, feared. That's why I support them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:54:07 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: So everyone thinks the Supreme Court will knock this down because of it is unconstitutional? ha, Ha, big fat HAAA. Just like they should have knocked down the 1994 bill because it is unconstitutional. Same for all the other gun laws. Difference: The Supreme Court cares about the First A. They don't care about the Second A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:02:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Give me a break. You're telling me that I should continute to vote for someone that is doing more to curtail my freedom than defend it (PATRIOT Act, and Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution anyone?) because the alternative MIGHT be worse? Bush supports the AW ban. Bush supports the hicap ban (and supports banning the importation of pre-94 hicaps.) Bush supports the 86 machine gun ban. Bush supports "closing the gun show loophole." Bush has signed this Incumbent Protection Bill/1st Amendment Destriction Act. Yep. Bottom line: He's a moderate Republican. And he's going to run against a radical socialist Democ[b]rat[/b] in 2004. What will you do? I'm through with him. My vote in 2004 goes to a 3rd party. You mean your vote goes to the radical socialist Democ[b]rat[/b]. If you're not on our side, you're on their side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:08:07 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Well, I think the lefty groups *are* on our side for the purposes of this issue, and I'm happy to have their help. Just because they are on the left doesn't mean they are *always* wrong on every single issue. (Just most of them.) As soon as they are done staving off this attack on the First Amendment, the lefty groups will wheel back around and recommence their attacks on the Second. They're certainly no friends of mine, regardless of the temporary congruity of our interests. I certainly don't begrudge them their lawsuits, especially since they also serve my interests, but I wouldn't shout my joy from the rooftops to have NAMBLA in my corner fighting to give the child molester point of view in TV ads come election time. The NRA has a lot of money to run ads during elections to help elect pro-gun candidates, or at least candidates that are not anti-gun. You don't think that is valuable in the continuing RKBA? You must really hate the NRA. They aren't perfect by a long shot, but they are powerful, respected, and more importantly, feared. That's why I support them. You're putting words in my mouth here. I absolutely think that it is valuable to air ads pointing out the pro- or anti-gun stance of candidates. That's why I oppose this piece of trash legislation. I absolutely do not "hate the NRA." I send them my $35 every year to keep the numbers up. But I think they are wilting violets in some fights, and help to write restrictive legislation in others. Talk to your friends in California and get their perspective on the steadfastness and valor of the NRA when it comes to speaking up in Sacramento. I see Charlton Heston holding a nice over-and-under in those ads, and I own a nice over-and-under. But I own a nice AR-15, and a nice Benelli too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:10:12 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: You mean your vote goes to the radical socialist Democ[b]rat[/b]. If you're not on our side, you're on their side. No, I mean my vote will not go to Bush. If Bush runs on the republican ticket, I'll vote for a 3rd party. If the republicans wise up and put someone who cares about my freedom up for president in 2004, I'll vote for him instead. I'd vote for a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-bill-of-rights democrat if one were running. Party affiliation is meaningless to me. I want the best man for the job, not someone who bears an elephant on a lapel pin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:16:55 AM EDT
[#30]
Post from zak -
I'd vote for a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-bill-of-rights democrat if one were running. For President from the Democrat Party? Get real, the Democrats would [b]never[/b] nominate someone like that, so your threat is empty! You just wannabe the 'Green Party' for the GOP![:D] Eric The(LookWhereThatGotGore!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:23:26 AM EDT
[#31]
- Bush signs obscenely titled "Patriot Act" into law.
Welcome the beginning of the end for the 4th. Amendment and the full fledge embrace of Orwellian "double speak". [:O] - Bush declares a "war on terror", yet he is ready to appease and capitulate to Arafat (a known terrorist) at every opportunity. Israel, on the other hand, must exhibit restraint and a desire to compromise with terrorists. Talk about "do as I say, not as I do!" For those slow on the uptake, this is also known as hypocrisy! [:(!] - Bush is ready to issue a blanket amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in the U.S. simply so he can pander to the Hispanic vote in 2004. Yup, good idea! Let's reward illegal behavior. I thought Bush brought "morals" back to the Oval Office? [>:/] - Now Bush signs a blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill into law, and does so in direct violation of his oath to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America! [:(] And he is worthy of my vote why exactly??? [rolleyes] [b]"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again!"[/b] Or will we????????????????????????????????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:33:08 AM EDT
[#32]
[b]Zak[/b] I respect your position and am glad you have the strong convictions that you do.
In the primaries, I'll also choose the best man out there - probably Republican, possibly W. But you have to look at realities. In the General Election, there are no run-offs. The winner will be [u]either[/u] Dominant Party Candidate #1 or Dominant Party Candidate #2 regardless of whether any of them got >50% of the vote. It will NEVER be a smaller 3rd party candidate. Do you cast your vote thinking that you're deciding who will be the next President or do you cast your vote thinking it's more like a popularity contest and you just want to send a message? Now IF election laws were changed so that a majority is required to win the General Election for President - THEN I would go along with voting 3rd party when the lesser of two evils is still too evil. As it stands now, I have to be a realist. But I do respect your position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:48:47 AM EDT
[#33]
My unequivocal support of the NRA will begin when Charlton lays down that wall hanger, picks up an M-16 and says....
"From my cold dead hands. Molon labe, mo' fo'..." Till then, they'll have my qualified support as the biggest show in town. garandman NRA Life Member GOA Member GOSC Member |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:49:47 AM EDT
[#34]
As soon as they are done staving off this attack on the First Amendment, the lefty groups will wheel back around and recommence their attacks on the Second. They're certainly no friends of mine, regardless of the temporary congruity of our interests. I certainly don't begrudge them their lawsuits, especially since they also serve my interests, but I wouldn't shout my joy from the rooftops to have NAMBLA in my corner fighting to give the child molester point of view in TV ads come election time. Well, Jarhead, you let me know when you see NAMBLA in your corner, my corner, or the NRA's corner. Leftists suck and are idiots, and they are not my friends, but the First A, restricted by this BS law, applies to them too. Even when they are doing their damndest (as they usually are) to try and dismantle the Second A. If they are against this stupid law, I can support them on this ONE issue. Doesn't mean I want to marry their sister. I absolutely think that it is valuable to air ads pointing out the pro- or anti-gun stance of candidates. That's why I oppose this piece of trash legislation. I absolutely do not "hate the NRA." I send them my $35 every year to keep the numbers up. But I think they are wilting violets in some fights, and help to write restrictive legislation in others. Talk to your friends in California and get their perspective on the steadfastness and valor of the NRA when it comes to speaking up in Sacramento. Agreed. They don't do everything I'd like them to do either. IMHO the NRA is gravely flawed because they are gung-ho in some situations and lukewarm at best in others. But overall they are still worthy of support and do a lot of positive things, or more importantly, are staunch opponents of a lot of negative things. I see Charlton Heston holding a nice over-and-under in those ads, and I own a nice over-and-under. But I own a nice AR-15, and a nice Benelli too. You see, Jarhead, you are a purist and not a politician. Good. Likewise, I'd be happy if Chuck held a full-auto Uzi in those ads. But the NRA is a *political* organization, and if Chuck did have some evil weapon in those pics, a lot of weak-minded and weak-willed people, even gun people, would freak out and think we're nuts. Even though you and I know we are NOT nuts. Hence the over/under. Understandable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:53:37 AM EDT
[#35]
Ancient Chinese proverb say... " If you continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, you [b]still[/b] wind up with evil leaders"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 10:58:44 AM EDT
[#36]
Is it just me or has the "media" turned left into center, center into right, right into extreme right wing conspiracy?
If Joeseph Gobbels were alive today, he would probably say that the United States media is the greatest propaganda tool ever devised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:04:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Do you think the law that bans owning a post-ban gun with a flash suppressor and modified autosear is unconstitutional? (most of us do) Do you obey this law that you KNOW is unconstitutional? (most of us do) Why? Aren't you choosing the "lesser of two evils" 1) breaking the law - going to jail, or 2) obeying a blatantly unconstitutional law - and staying relatively free. Get off your hypocritical high horses and just acknowledge that Bush is doing the same thing: He doing what he needs to (in spite of knowing it's wrong) to avoid the more disasterous consequence of the choosing the alternative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:05:38 AM EDT
[#38]
I understand the politics behind his signing of the bill but I'm disappointed in Bush on this one.
I would rather that he had stood on his oath of office and on principle as reasons (and damn good ones, IMHO) for not signing the bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:07:43 AM EDT
[#39]
The_Macallan
He doing what he needs to (in spite of knowing it's wrong) to avoid the more disasterous consequence of the choosing the alternative. So do we forsake principals for comfort? Where is the Hun when you need him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:27:16 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: So do we forsake principals for comfort? Yes, you certainly do. My example proves this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:28:27 AM EDT
[#41]
It's a step in the right direction. It wont hurt NRA anymore than it hurts HCI. Plus it will hurt the UAW and other big labor (democrat) unions more than anyone else.
If this law were in effect during the last elections Bush would have carried Penn & Mich. Instead the labor unions bought those states for Gore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:30:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Looking at NYpatriot's list and thinking "Why can't we go back to a pres that just wanted a hummer?"
Does any one want to stack up the equivalent time that Clinton was in office and see if he did more damage to our rights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:30:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Do you think the law that bans owning a post-ban gun with a flash suppressor and modified autosear is unconstitutional? (most of us do) Do you obey this law that you KNOW is unconstitutional? (most of us do) Why? Aren't you choosing the "lesser of two evils" 1) breaking the law - going to jail, or 2) obeying a blatantly unconstitutional law - and staying relatively free. {Bush is} doing what he needs to (in spite of knowing it's wrong) to avoid the more disasterous consequence of the choosing the alternative. T_M - Try this on for size.... I think there may be a small disconnest in your comparison. I think its a bit worse for Bush, who has publicly sworn to uphold and defend.... in CREATING an unConstitutional law, than in someone (who has never sworn such an oath) TOLERATING an unCOnstitutional law to avoid unjust punishment. Both are perpetrating a violation of the Constitution. One has an opportunity to STOP a violation, the other perpetuates the destruction of the Constituion thru silence, but has little power to stop it. Stated another way - who is worse.... Someone who commits murder, or someone who does little to stop a murder he sees being committed. But not being one inclined to beleive there is any difference in little white lies vs. big fat whoppers, I'm thinking the difference may be moot. Can you tell I'm conflicted here??? I wonder if there is Federal $$$ for people like me out there??? Can Clinton feel MY pain???? [BD] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:36:16 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: So do we forsake principals for comfort? Yes, you certainly do. My example proves this. I do not, as an example I will never get a CCW, and I will continue to carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:40:19 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: I think its a bit worse for Bush, who has publicly sworn to uphold and defend.... in CREATING an unConstitutional law, than in someone (who has never sworn such an oath) TOLERATING an unCOnstitutional law to avoid unjust punishment. Both are perpetrating a violation of the Constitution. One has an opportunity to STOP a violation, the other perpetuates the destruction of the Constituion thru silence, but has little power to stop it. Stated another way - who is worse.... Someone who commits murder, or someone who does little to stop a murder he sees being committed. Sometimes a retreat is necessary to redirect your forces. I think Bush is just picking his battles wisely. He can disarm Daschle with a very popular bill that he knows will eventually be struck down by SCOUTUS. End result: killing two birds with one stone (and he doesn't even have to throw it - SCOTUS does) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:46:03 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: THINK OF THIS THO - IF HE CAN REGAIN THE SENATE, WE HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF LETTING THE 1994 CRIME BILL SUNSET. Is that good enuf reason to pass what he KNOWS to be an unConstitutional law? You be the judge. G'man, I think 99.99% of us are gonna vote for Bush. Simply because he will be up against Gore/Hillary/Reno or whatever travesty the Dems are gonna run against him. We also know damn well the Dems are looking to repay the last election they believe was stolen. And they will do everything they can to promote that myth in an effort to sway the uneducated voter, whose numbers are so huge they decide who actualy wins. Scary huh? But don't think for a SECOND that George will do anything to prevent a NEW 2004 assault weapon ban, which will be more restrictive than thte previous, from becoming a law. And he WILL sign it. Absolutely the 94 crime bill will sunset. But what will replace it will make it seem like a gun free for all. The next election is absolutely crucial to gun rights, and anyone who doesn't see that is a idiot. So votes for third parties may as well be votes for the Democrats. The only thing worse than what George WILL allow to happen in September 2004, will be what a Democratic President will do as a follow up. But make no mistake. In 2004 we are in for a serious butt f*cking and George Bush will be driving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:47:25 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: I do not, as an example I will never get a CCW, and I will continue to carry. Civil disobedience? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:50:01 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: I do not, as an example I will never get a CCW, and I will continue to carry. Civil disobedience? When I can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:50:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: [b]Zak[/b] I respect your position and am glad you have the strong convictions that you do. Thank you. I am a bit less respectful of your position, but fully support your right to have it. [:D] In the General Election, there are no run-offs. The winner will be [u]either[/u] Dominant Party Candidate #1 or Dominant Party Candidate #2 regardless of whether any of them got >50% of the vote. It will NEVER be a smaller 3rd party candidate. The republicans and the democrats have not always been the dominant parties in american politics. Obviously, change is possible. The reason it will never be a 3rd party candidate is because of the myth, unknowlingly perpetuated and supported by those like yourself, that voting for a 3rd party is "throwing your vote away." If enough of us "threw our votes away" a 3rd party candidate could win. I'm reminded of one of the halloween episodes of "The Simpsons" where there is an alien plot to replace both Bob Dole and Bill Clinton before the 1996 election. The conspiracy is found out on election day when both "candidates" are unmasked. The aliens then laugh at the humans, telling them that they are a republican and a democrat, and are the only game in town, so the aliens win either way. A shout from the crowd states, "Oh yeah, well we'll just vote for a third party!" to which the alien responds, "What, and throw your vote away?!" causing murmers of "oh my god, he's right!" from the crowd. Scene shows voters marching into the booth, then cuts to the future where humanity is enslaved. Someone expresses discontent over the situation, to which the reply is, "Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!" (the alien who lost) That's where we are today. Slowly but surely, our rights are eroded, and the only difference between the parties seems to be the speed at which they operate, and the particular rights they want to go after FIRST. Do you cast your vote thinking that you're deciding who will be the next President or do you cast your vote thinking it's more like a popularity contest and you just want to send a message? In the past I supported the lesser of the two evils--the person whom I thought would do the least amount of damage to my rights. In the future, I will simply vote my conscience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2002 11:53:35 AM EDT
[#50]
The_Macallan, I understand exactly what Bush is doing. He is putting the interests of his political party ahead of the principle of liberty.
He is playing a high stakes game of political poker and our freedom of speech hangs in the balance. He is betting that by signing this bill, he can... 1) remove the issue of campaign finance reform from the table once and for all, thus disarming the Democrats. 2) Have the most onerous aspects of the law struck down by the SCOTUS. He walks away with clean hands, and the SCOTUS looks like the "bad guy" to the sheeple and the media. 3) Have the GOP come out the long-term winner because raising the "hard money" cap benefits the Republicans. Have I proven to you that I understand [b]why[/b] he signed the bill??? With all that said however, Bush is [b]still wrong[/b] for signing this bill into law! Why? 1) He is going back on his campaign promise to not sign a campaign finance bill that is constitutionally questionable and flawed. Thus, he is selling down the river, everyone that voted for him on the basis of his promised platform and policies (myself included). 2) He is violating his oath of office, which is a commitment to adhere to and protect the principles set forth in the Constitution. By doing this, he sells out every American, and weakens the Constitution. 3) What if the SCOTUS [b]doesn’t[/b] find this law to be unconstitutional? Are you comfortable with this possible outcome? Will the Republic be a better place for it? Will the principles that this nation is founded on mean [b]anything[/b] at that point? Macallan, you can cloak yourself in the virtues of "pragmatic politics" all you want, but if we continue down the path that you advocate, our journey will eventually end at the feet of a tyrant. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
