If the president refused to enforce a law confiscating weapons, he would be doing so in defense of the constitution. I would support his arrest and trial of those congresscritters who saw fit to act in violation of the constitution. Just as in this case, I would support his arrest and trial of any congresscritter who saw fit to share information that jeopardized US servicemen.
But as much as you would like it to be.... and as much as you;d like to ascribe some great sense of nobility to Bush's actions in this case... that example just isn't applicable.
The president clearly does not challenge the constitutionality of the notification requirement. He simply chooses to ignore it.
You know it.... I know it... so quit changing the subject ot hypotheticals.
I wasn't saying that it was, especially since, as dodgedart74 pointed out, Bush signed the law in question and then promptly said he would disregard a section of it. So the debate degrades, as has our system of governance, into a debate whether this was a necessity or opportunistic - but to simply say that the president should be absolutely bound to what Congress dictates is dangerous in this age of a moribound system of checks and balances. That is the point I was trying to make, that it is flawed to simply say that a president should follow the law when so many are flawed.
I'm curious if it is against the law for Congress to leak intelligence info, seeing as they exempt themselves from just about every other law they pass. I would be more inclinded to support your point of view here if there were clear, enforceable sanctions against leaky members of Congress in this matter. Maybe someone else can provide an answer, I don't know.
--------------------------------------------------
Here it is, the law he is supposedly breaking. It seems to me that what he reports is up to him but, like I said, I'm no lawyer.
My question to all is, how do you accuse W of anything without even reading the law?
Here are some relevent facts:1)Laws and Rules are indeed different and Rules are regularly created AFTER the laws are passed;2) the constitution gives control of the executive branch to the president (not Congress no matter how many laws it passes to the contrary); and intelligence agencies are in the executive branch;3) we don't have a copy of the law so that we can see the EXACT language; not the language of some ignorant left wing republican hater but what is really IN the law;4) the media and democrats (and the platoon of the perpetually p.o.ed, such as you, Arator, rowdee etc.) are desperately seeking a wedge to drive between Bush and the people for fear that the Rats will get creamed in the next elections.
Given all that I would think that a thoughtful individual would be a bit cautious before running his mouth.
it seems like you're back pedaling here. what happened to doing the honorable thing and taking it up with the SCOTUS?