Replies

But JAG, it is precisely Bush's job to protect my rights. I pay him for his wisdom and his opinions.

The argument that the negative effects on my free speech don't offset the 'positive' improvements to campaigns is, in fact, his opinion on the bill.

If he knew the minute he signed it that the Supreme Court would strike down the 'bad' parts, he knew it was Unconstitutional. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's what I pay him for.

To "uphold" the Constitution, not interpret it (as the judiciary does). I, as a solider, took an oath to "defend" the Constitution, not interpret it.

What do you say to my bottom line question, posted above?

I used the example I did precisely because it was Bush's opinion of the bill. I'm saying it seems to me you disagree with him vehemently on the conclusion that the good in the bill outweighs the bad. Cato, I feel your pain and I am not being sarcastic. I, too, am passionate about our rights and freedoms as Americans. But I just can't agree that we can or should expect a president to determine a bill's constitutionality. He can determine its value---and in this, in your view, he apparently failed and big-time---but constitutionality? No.