[concerned about politics]

Listen. If Bush vetoed this law, it could and would very well come up again. If he signs it, then sends it to SCOTUS (as he has said in his own press release that parts of it are unconstitutional), SCOTUS could rule on it and render the decision that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it would never be brought up again...ever.

EXCELLENT POINT! GO BUSH!!!!!

[DJ88]

Sometimes the "tapping of the fingers" actually works. :-) I don't just spout off the first thing that comes to mind. It takes a little work, but it's sometimes useful. ;-)

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

It's too bad Bush can't submit it for review BEFORE signing it. That way, when the USSC rules on the free speech clauses, Bush can veto it, say he is doing so because of the oath he took, and send it back so they can strike the clause(s) from the bill and send it back to him to sign.

After all, if it's a Constitutional issue, wouldn't he want to have that in writing from the final arbiter of the Constitution BEFORE signing it? Or am I being to idealistic?

[Buckeroo]

SCOTUS is capable of determing law under the Constitution. Nothing about interpreting the same.

Article III, section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, .....

You folks argue like sick folks within an insane asylum.

[Libertarian_4_eva]

Listen. If Bush vetoed this law, it could and would very well come up again. If he signs it, then sends it to SCOTUS (as he has said in his own press release that parts of it are unconstitutional), SCOTUS could rule on it and render the decision that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it would never be brought up again...ever.

What drugs are you on? The democrats will bring it up over and over again. I did not vote for bush so he can send all the hard decisions to the supreme court. When the democrats try to stop home schooling do you want him to send it to the supreme court on that one also?