I think that Bush played poker here and it was one of the rare times when he misread his hand.
If he hadn't signed it, even if he explained that he thought it wasn't constitutional (which *isn't* a role of the Executive Branch, last time I looked) the Democrats and the non-Republican wing of the Republican Party would have had a field day about corrupt Republican fat cats and their big corporate contributions (although, if you look at the numbers, the Dems get the majority of the large donations). I believe that he signed it, thinking
"there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Supreme Court will rule that this is constitutional when it hits their desks, and it will definitely hit their desks."
And the Supreme Court failed to rule as he had anticipated.
<< demonstrated in his casual abrogation of its First Amendment by his signing of McCain/Feingold; ...
I think that Bush played poker here and it was one of the rare times when he misread his hand.
If he hadn't signed it, even if he explained that he thought it wasn't constitutional (which *isn't* a role of the Executive Branch, last time I looked) the Democrats and the non-Republican wing of the Republican Party would have had a field day about corrupt Republican fat cats and their big corporate contributions (although, if you look at the numbers, the Dems get the majority of the large donations). I believe that he signed it, thinking
"there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Supreme Court will rule that this is constitutional when it hits their desks, and it will definitely hit their desks."
And the Supreme Court failed to rule as he had anticipated. >>
Of course the Constitutionality of legislation is the Executive's concern and, come to that, the House's and the Senate's.
Every congressmsn and senator and president until the Socialist International's fellow-travelling traitor, F Roosevelt, hit town, examined every idea, draft and piece of legislation for its Constitutionality. And rejected it out of hand, usually at its conception or in draft form -- but most certainly before it passed a president's desk -- if its basis could not be found in our nation's founding law.
And until it began granting itself tyrannical dictatorial powers, none -- and most certainly not our beloved FRaternal republic's Founding Fathers -- saw the supreme court as ever either granting itself such powers as it presently excercises, as being allowed to so casually create "law" by fiat -- or of being a "co-equal" branch of government.
England's George W Three must spin in his grave with envy at the thought of weilding such power as that so scot-and-impeachment-free taken upon themselves by our [At one time] humble and trusted servants of the bench.
And, sad to say, on close to every occasion the United States Constitution has been his to examine, to comprehend, to be seen to be guided by and to owe allegiance to, Mr Bush has pretty clearly demonstrated little more understanding of, respect for and guidance by our Constitution's absolutes, rules and limitations -- including upon his office -- than that shown by the swimmer, by Joe Biden, by David Souter, by AlFRedo GoreLeone and/or by the ACLU's Ruth Bader Ginszberg.
McCain-Feingold, our Sovereign Borders and now the nomination of this Michael Brown in a dress being but the cases in point.
Blessings -- Brian