Looks like some are slow learners. You never let one branch of government get by with subverting the Constitution much less two of them then on the chance a yet third branch {who's record is at best poor on such matters of the Constitution} stop tyranny. Didn't the Impeachment of Clinton teach anyone anything?
The bill as written should have never left congress. I'll go further it should have died in comittee. Yet it made it not only past two houses but POTUS as well. We have been in a Constitutional crisis for nearly 4 years now with two of three branches out to lunch on upholding their oath to defend the Constitution.
I do have to wonder if this law was written to kill every first born male child if the people would be willing to wait on the USSC? Or better yet kill their first born male as it has become law until USSC decides if it will even hear the case at all and overturn it as being UnConstitutional? This was dangerous precedent on the part of congress and POTUS. People it seems forget a trial or challange of this law in no way means the USSC will even bother to hear it at all.
No were not talking about first born males. But we are talking about the 1st ammendment as we know it to be. We are gambling away our childrens future in hopes the USSC will bail out bad judgement {in the very least} on the part of two branches of governmnet who swear an oath to do better than that.
But to make my point very clear we indeed daily kill our first born males with the blessing of the USSC. We call it abortion. Yet the right to LIFE/ Liberty, and persuit of happiness is the declaration foundation of our nation. How much further do we lower the standard? Better yet is there a standard left to lower in our government?
If a bill is bad, on whatever ground, no doubt it should not be passed, or even passed out of committee, as you said. But if it is, how much responsibility and therefore power do we want presidents to have to make constitutional judgments?
Did you see my question about how conservatives would react if a president like Bubba vetoed a law outlawing partial birth abortion on the basis he thought it was unconstitutional?
I can see you care about the travesty of abortion, as do I. What are your thoughts on this example? Would we not feel that we deserved our day in court? That it was not for Bubba to take away our chance to argue that the law was constitutional by refusing to sign it simply because he thought it was unconstitutional?
Doesn't it seem the opposite is being argued re CFR?