What makes you think I didn't understand that?
Silly me I must have miss read that part about it not being his
job to interpret law, just sign them.
This is what did it for me:
reply 64:
Bush said his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional, BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is. I do NOT want a president of ANY party making those decisions. That ain't his job.
reply81:
On policy grounds as they always do. The president takes an oath to preserve and to defend the constitution NOT to interpret law. Declaring a bill unconstitutional is a legal decision that the president does not posses. He can speak his mind and he can have his Solicitor General mount a challenge to a law that he likes except for the parts he feels are unconstitutional. I sure as hell do not want one man having constitutional veto. That is not protecting and defending the constitution.. Policy and those disputes are fine.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
If as you state, "his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional", it most certainly is within his job description to veto this bill, note his objections and return the bill to the House.
That is NOT interpreting law. It is NOT making a declaration of any kind.
IMHO, it is the manner the President is supposed to be speaking his mind in these cases and that "in my opinion these parts of this bill are constitutionally questionable. 1,2,3,..." would be a legitimate objection.
The Congress is within its power to override his veto or they can change the bill and start the process over again.
There is no chance of one branch of governement or "one man having constitutional veto" over a bill.