[Texasforever]

Again, is it okay to intentionally violate the oath of office -- to sign a bill, like CFR, that the President knew was unconstitutional -- simply because the end justified the means?

He violated NO oath. He made a decision to let the recognized arbiter, the USSC, to exercise its power to decide the constitutional soundness of the bill. That is what we have 3 co-equal branches of government for in this republic.

[Fraulein]

Then you tell me what this part of the presidential oath means, and what it would require from Bush in practice: "to uphold the constitution of the United States." I would it assume that it would mean that he shouldn't sign bills that he knows are blatantly unconstitutional. Maybe I am wrong.