Replies

My2Cents said: "In fact, who gave the President the authority to declare what bills are constitutional and which are not? "

Bills are unsigned legislation. The President's oath of office obligates him not to sign if the bill is unConstitutional. Since every defendant has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, the President is justified in prosecuting cases in accordance with the laws and with the expectation that appeals will be filed.

There needs to be a way for someone like Ashcroft to prosecute gun laws based on the language of the law, but with a footnote indicating that the law is thought unconstitutional.

Since higher courts choose which cases to hear and which not, they could choose to hear a case prior to trial when the Attorney General has indicated doubts about the Constitutionality.

Although heartened by the government's filing in Emerson upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, I believe that the higher court should be encouraged to review Emerson because other District Courts have made ridiculous rulings regarding the Second Amendment.

If the Supreme Court agrees with Ashcroft, then most of 20,000 gun laws are null and void. If the Supreme Court disagrees, then the stage is set for the Second American Revolution. Emerson will be needed for Militia service during the Second American Revolution, so he will need his right to keep and bear arms restored, since he has been found not guilty of any crime in state court.

I have previously stated that I have withdrawn my consent to be governed due to the infringements of my right to keep and bear arms. I will continue to withhold my consent until Emerson has his rights back. And all of the other people who have been jailed for keeping and bearing arms. It is unfortunate that nothing will bring back Weaver's family or the children of Waco.

His oath of Office requires him to "Uphold the Constitution to the best of his ability" he is not the final arbitor, nor is he a lawyer (Thank God), It is the responsibility of the SCOTUS to decide what's constituional, otherwise we wouldn't have a SCOTUS to begin with. You see, the founding fathers were aware that the Congress and the President can't be expected to define the Constitution or change it, The POTUS is required to uphold the laws on the Books not define them.

The President's oath of office obligates him not to sign if the bill is unConstitutional.

I repeat my question (for the last time): How do you know the CFR is unconstitutional? In all likelihood, it probably is. But what gives you, or even the President, the authority to proclaim a bill unconstituional? If he wanted to veto it, he could have, for whatever reason. He could have vetoed it because he doesn't like the way McCain's veins stick out of his neck when he's angry. But he signed it as a political expedient, with the knowledge that some persuasive groups would take on the new law in the courts, and would probably bring it down. But I repeat: no one, other than the judiciary, can say for a fact whether such-and-such a law is unconstitutional. You say it is: That's your opinion. But that's all it is: a personal opinion.

I hate to argue with you since you have been quite fair on this thread but you cannot hang your hat on the presidential oath. If you take that stance then any president that enforces existing laws based on his public observation that they are "unconstitutional" has also violated that oath. That would mean that every president in history has committed an impeachable offense. It is well settled that if any law can be argued rationally from both sides it is up to the USSC to rule on the controversy. Bush could have vetoed the bill but that veto would not survive past his term in office if another president decides to ask congress to resubmit it for his signature. The USSC can kill it, the veto only delays it.