Replies

He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional; he may think, like we do, that it IS constitutional, but unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

First, I think a simple reading of the bill makes it clear that it is in fact constitutional; one doesn't need to be a Justice of The Supreme Court to see that. Second, Bush himself indicated he believed there are constitutional issues present. If that's the case, he has a duty to veto the bill.

I think you've mistakenly led yourself to believe determining consitutionality is solely the job of the courts. In fact, it is the job of every branch of government: the lawmakers when drafting the bill, the President when signing it, and as a last resort the court system.

I think you've mistakenly led yourself to believe determining consitutionality is solely the job of the courts.

Yes, and it implies words in the consitution don't really mean what they say. By that standard, only nine, non-elected Justices are capable of interpreting plain english. Also, how about military officers who swear to uphold the constitution? Do they have to wait years for a Supreme Court ruling to know if they have fulfilled their oaths?

This is the parallel universe we entered when the Supreme Court fabricated "rights" not in the constitution (such as abortion) and watered down those clearly protected, in plain english, in the document (such as the right to keep and bear arms).