[Arthur McGowan]

I have seen more than one Freeper argue that a bill isn't unconstitutional until it comes before the Supreme Court for review! These Freepers argue that the President should sign ANYTHING, and that Congress should pass ANYTHING, because the word "unconstitutional" means nothing, until the Supreme Court declares somethign "unconstitutional."

When "conservatives" argue this way, it's all over.

If Bush signs Shays-Meehan, he's violating his oath of office--no matter what he "hopes" the Supreme Court may do down the road.

[Charlotte Corday]

If President Bush were to strip to the buff, paint himself orange, and publicly urinate on the Washington Monument there'd be many on FR who'd say, "Don't be concerned, it's all part of his deep strategy."

[robertpaulsen]

Your argument sounds logical when the bill is one we dislike and the president is one we like. Reverse the two. Still sound good? If so, then you're right. It's all over.

Rich Lowry does make a good point, however. GW's signature "puts the weight of his administration behind the law", even though it is not what GW intends. It's a real dilemma when presented with a bill that may be unconstitutional.

[Uncle Bill]

"I have seen more than one Freeper argue that a bill isn't unconstitutional until it comes before the Supreme Court for review! These Freepers argue that the President should sign ANYTHING, and that Congress should pass ANYTHING, because the word "unconstitutional" means nothing, until the Supreme Court declares somethign "unconstitutional."

When "conservatives" argue this way, it's all over.

If Bush signs Shays-Meehan, he's violating his oath of office--no matter what he "hopes" the Supreme Court may do down the road."

Bump.