Replies

You are aware that at one time the congress took onto itself a "legislative veto? and used it both to attempt to usurp the Executive power of veto PLUS an attempt at immunity from judicial review? It was found unconstitutional and never heard from again. The checks and balances were put there for the very reasons that are being argued today. It allows NO single branch supremacy over the other. The branch of government the founders were most leery of was the executive. In fact there was a serious debate that the executive be in the form a "board of directors" not a single "president". When decided that it would be unworkable they decided on a single executive President but they also allowed for a limited veto, not absolute, that did not survive his term of office.

Your argument that the “oath of office” requires presidents to veto bills they consider “unconstitutional” is specious. If that were true, then every president that signed a law that was subsequently actually found to be unconstitutional would be subject to Impeachment. The same goes for any president that was on record as saying an existing law was in his opinion unconstitutional but yet enforced those laws would be even MORE in violation of his “oath” as you define it.

And the 'seperation of powers' ONLY concept is too simplistic to cover it all. There are some laws that could be vague and fall under the 'general welfare'/necessary and proper umbrella. In that instance, barring a presidents out right opposition to a bill, he should sign it. But something that a president clearly considers unconstitutional he should veto it IMHO. I'm not blaming Bush anymore than the other GOP'ers. Infact, once found unconstitutional, the left-over parts will benefit the GOP more than the Dems.

...actually, there were some that feared the judiciary as well. Jefferson, though not at the Constitutional Convention was one. The seperation of powers is almost a moot point and a non-starter. IF a president WANTS to veto a bill, he can give no reason, personal reasons, OR constitutional reasons. The 'Oath' argument begs the question 'If a president feels a law is unconstitutional, should he veto it?' What does seperation of powers got to do with his veto power?