On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 04:06 PM 3/27/02 -0600 Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: > >As opposed to the vast numbers of people rich enough to purchase TV > >airtime for commercials? Don't worry, the Supreme Court will almost > >certainly overturn that provision. > > I'm not supposed to worry because Congress can pass and the President will > sign a law that is egregiously in violation of the Constitution? And then, > I supposed to place my trust in the same Institution that found a > Constitutional Right to a partial-birth abortion in the Constitution?
Look at it this way, if liberals and conservatives both fear the same government, then it's not all that bad, or else it's Vive le Revelucion! Or look at it another way: when again are you ever going to agree with the ACLU? :-) > The Supreme Court is supposed to be the protection of last resort for our > Freedoms in this country. The fact that Congress and the President have > willfully abbrogated those freedoms is worryingly enough - let alone the > fact that now our freedoms are now only protected by an often capricious > Supreme Court. I can understand disliking the bill on a number of counts, but if signing it is a violation of one's oath of office, then every time anyone's signed a bill later ruled unconstitutional (assuming that happens to this one), that person has violated his oath of office. It's simply too sweeping an indictment. Or are you and Gautam really suggesting that Bush should get the full Clinton-treatment from the Republican party's rightmost members for this? :-) Marvin Long Austin, Texas
