[VRWC_minion]

Unfortunately this is a job that he deserted in favor of a quest for media love.

Here is my problem with this statement. If it turns out that the SC agreed with the bill as signed, then its constitutional. How do we trash the man for signing an unconstitutional bill that gets upheld as constutitional ?

We may disagree with it but we certainly lose credibility by claiming he breached a duty by signing something that later proved to be upheld. I think the case against him only works if the SC rules against him.

[rudehost]

Thats the thing. The SCOTUS cannot always be correct on what is constitutional. The evidence of that is their reversal of their own previous decisions. That means by definition the court is often wrong on the constitution. Unless you believe in a living breathing constitution you can't use the supreme court as a barometer of constitutionality.

That being said I will go with the plain language that is crystal clear that this is unconstitutional. GW basically admitted as much when he signed it.