[rwfromkansas]

if Bush passes it of to the SCOTUS and it gets struck down, the Dems will come back and say Bush is not defending the Constitution since he did sign it. The Dems will have something to say no matter what Bush does. VETO. I have e-mailed Karl Rove and plan on e-mailing others in the advisory capacity, as well as faxing, calling, and e-mailing Bush himself.

[LS]

I've seen a lot of scenarios, but I'm afraid yours is flat WRONG for one major reason: the Dems never, NEVER, invoke the Constitution for ANY PURPOSE because it stands in direct opposition to everything they want.

[DugwayDuke]

"if Bush passes it of to the SCOTUS and it gets struck down, the Dems will come back and say Bush is not defending the Constitution since he did sign it. The Dems will have something to say no matter what Bush does."

Your point that the Democrats will have something to say regardless of what Bush does is valid. However, if Bush can reduce the Democratic arguments to something that absurd, then he will have neutralized this issue while achieving the objective of stopping this bill at minimum cost. Vetoing the bill only gives the Democrats more ammunition by keeping this issue alive. Vetoing the bill does not prove its unconstitutionality. Only a USSC decision can make that point. Call in the "heavy artillery", USSC, and prove it's unconstitutional. THEN, blast the Democrats for attacking the constitution.