Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Howlin
Article VI of the U.S Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

If you have doubts that a bill is constitutional, but sign it anyway, are you upholding your Oath?

140 posted on 03/25/2002 12:37:07 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]


To: Sir Gawain
Game, set, match...
142 posted on 03/25/2002 12:37:46 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]

To: Sir Gawain
For 8 years, Ronald Reagan pushed for line item veto authority. After it was passed (by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Bubba), SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Was President Reagan trying to knowingly subvert the Constitution all of those years?

154 posted on 03/25/2002 12:44:49 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]

To: Sir Gawain; Nittany Lion
If you have doubts that a bill is constitutional, but sign it anyway, are you upholding your Oath?

Huh, then why do we have a Supreme Court? Or did the Founders put the Supreme Court into the Constitution just for fun?

Come on, your alls superior knowledge can answer that question.

You all seem to pride yourselves of being the "know alls and be alls".

161 posted on 03/25/2002 12:46:40 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]

To: Sir Gawain
Depends on what you mean by "support". If you define a strict adherence, then there is a contradiction in allowing it to be amended. The ad ban is obviously unconstitutional. Although it can be said that TV stations violate the 1st amendment every election cycle by not granting access time to certain candidates. Now, should Bush veto it? Yes! And I fail to understand his actions here. But does it mean I won't vote for him in 2004? No... I plan to vote for him. I would like him to strike down Roe v. Wade by Executive Order, but since he has no plans to do that, I still will vote for him. He will be far superior to Hillary, Daschle, Edwards, or any of their ilk.
165 posted on 03/25/2002 12:47:37 PM PST by Tuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]

To: Sir Gawain

Doubts equals uncertainty, but not absolute knowledege or assurance.... then if that's the case the correct method is to let the Constitutional arbitrator decide... imo.

169 posted on 03/25/2002 12:48:46 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson