At 08:32 PM 3/27/02 -0600 Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
>Or look at it another way: when again are you ever going to agree with
>the ACLU? :-)
I think that it has happened once or twice..... but yes, this coalition
does produce some odd bedfellows.
>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? :-)
Hey, Gautam was the one who called it a violation of the Oath of
Office...... I would say that it only is so if Bush truly believed it to
be a violation of the Constitution and signed it anyways for political
expediency. Now, while the answer is obvious to me, there are people who
do have honest disagreements with that view - like a colleague of mine who
believes that the airwaves, as the property of the people, are therfore
managed in the public interest by the government, thus giving the
government *plenary* authority over the airwaves, and therfore producing no
right to freedom of speech on the airwaves. Of course, this is a
viewpoint that seems reasonable on the surface, but could have devastating
consequences if employed, I won't dismiss the idea that Bush might actually
believe it.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"We fight against poverty because faith requires it and
conscience demands it." - George W. Bush 3/22/02
