Replies

GWB has announced that he will sign into law a bill that flies in the face of the constitution. And you don't think this amounts to a broken promise

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. Don't bring up the oath of office because you have NO idea the context in which that oath is given or sworn to. This is going to court very quickly and Ted Olsen will lead the charge. If you look at the bill language the congress has already made provisions for congressional intervention with the courts in case of challange and it does NOT include the Solicitor General.

Thanks for that perspective. I needed it.

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what you are talking about? If he is or isn't going to veto a bill, what do you think he should be basing his decision on if not the Constitution. I have a problem believing that anyone could seriously say that. Should he base it on if it meets his agenda? Maybe based on what side of the bed he got out on?

I absolutly expect a President to base ALL decisions on the Constitution including vetos just like Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson's veto

Huh? The constitutionality shouldn't be debated in the congress even if they, as lawyers, know it to be wrong? I would have expected the president to put up a bigger fight on this than caving in a few hours after the vote today. If he got on national TV during prime time and explained why he is against it and how it relates to the war on terror there is nobody who could seriously damage him politically. Let's think here about what our troops are fighting for now. Maybe it is to protect our way of life and our freedoms. Maybe they should come home because we need them more in Washington DC.

BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is

where is that in the Constitution??

I thought we had 3 separate and co-equal branches of government. You have just made the courts the final imperial arbiters... sick!!

BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is.

That is a completely ignorant statement. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it mentions the Supreme Court as being the final arbitrator of what is or is not constitutional. All three branches are given equal responsibility for determining and upholding the Constitution.

"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. "

Of course he's not the arbiter. He's an arbiter. Equally with the other two branches of government.

It would be nice if Bush had the line-item veto so he could excise the bad parts but he does not and will rely on the courts to do it for him.

I don't know about the line item veto, but what happened here was that the rep's passed a bill they knew was unconstitutional, the sen's passed a bill they kew was unconstitutional, and the prez is intending to sign that unconstitutional bill into law. We'll pass anything, and have no respect for that oath to the Constitution we took -- oaths like that are for the Supreme Court, we all are just buck passers.

So the Bushes *require* that folks show *respect* by forbidding jeans and requiring jackets to their Oval Office, but Mr. Bush disses the Constitution as easily as any Clintonian slacker grunging in that oval office.

Just like the Senate, really. One must Dress Well, but being true to one's oaths is scorned.

* * * *

And even for such "pratical" politics as was played, there will be a great cost, I think. That is when the Supremes take out this trash legislation -- and it's trash for many reasons, not the least its complexity and length -- when the Justices dump this, why the media and dimwit Senatorial caste are gonna raise quite a ruckus and bitter lament.

They are grudge bearers as fond of grudges as of dressing well, and when Mr. Bush brings a Supreme position before them they will have at him on this point -- they will bark and bite and nip and tear until the only Justice passing muster will be as slackerified as any of them. A slacker as to the Constitution.

A "living" Constitution, alive for all the rot invading it.

...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...

The only times Pres. Washington vetoed a bill was when he thought it was unconstitutional. There is no single arbiter: all us citizens, and all our elected hired help, have a responsiblity to see that the Gov't stays within Constitutinal bounds.