[Howlin]

He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional; he may think, like we do, that it IS constitutional, but unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

You've gone way past what is or is not right in this case; you are demanding that Bush veto this bill to PROVE he's a conservative TO YOU.

He doesn't play like that, much to your horror, I suspect.

[Triple]

If Bush cannot use his best judgement as to the constitutionality of the bill and act accordingly, then why did we even bother to administer to him his oath of office? (and demand an answer in the affirmative to become President)

[areafiftyone]

You've gone way past what is or is not right in this case; you are demanding that Bush veto this bill to PROVE he's a conservative TO YOU. He doesn't play like that, much to your horror, I suspect.

Thank you - couldn't have said it better myself. How quickly they turn. Well I hope they enjoy one of our Democreep hopefuls in 2004. The Democreeps are gonna have a field day.

[MassExodus]

but unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

What you've said is just frightening.

"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the Right to Free Speech".

I'm assuming that Bush will READ what it is he's about to sign ... right ?

Howlin,

men didn't give you the right to get together with 20 of your closest friends and take out an ad in the paper on behalf of whatever cause you find worth fighting for -

GOD gave you that Right.

Regardless of how many political points it may garner him, or how IGNORANT he may be of the basic tenants of our form of government,

if Bush signs that Bill, he will deserve to be slapped for it.

That Congress is guilty of creating, and the Supreme Court will likely kill this retarded un-Constitutional Law is NO excuse for Bush.

[NittanyLion]

He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional; he may think, like we do, that it IS constitutional, but unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

First, I think a simple reading of the bill makes it clear that it is in fact constitutional; one doesn't need to be a Justice of The Supreme Court to see that. Second, Bush himself indicated he believed there are constitutional issues present. If that's the case, he has a duty to veto the bill.

I think you've mistakenly led yourself to believe determining consitutionality is solely the job of the courts. In fact, it is the job of every branch of government: the lawmakers when drafting the bill, the President when signing it, and as a last resort the court system.

[michigander]

unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court

Seems Jefferson disagrees with you.

"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

---

Washington too.

The first use of this Constitutional power was by Washington, who, on the 5th April, 1792, vetoed the "Representation Bill," which originated in the House of Representatives. As this, from its priority, is an event worthy of extended notice, we give the circumstances of the case, as briefly related by Jefferson, then secretary of state:--

"April 6th. The President called on me before breakfast, and first introduced some other matter, then fell on the Representation Bill, which he had now in his possession for the 10th day. I had before given him my opinion, in writing, that the method of apportionment was contrary to the Constitution. He agreed that it was contrary to the common understanding of that instrument, and to what was understood bill the time by the makers of it; that yet it would bear the construction which the bill put; and he observed that the vote for and against the bill was perfectly geographical--a northern against a southern vote--and he feared he should be thought to be taking side with a southern party. I admitted the motive of delicacy, but that it should not induce him to do wrong, and urged the dangers to which the scramble for the fractionary members would always lead. He here expressed his fear that there would, ere long, be a separation of the Union; that the public mind seemed dissatisfied, and tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, the attorney-general, desired him to get Mr. Madison immediately, and come to me; and if we three concurred in opinion, that he would negative the bill. He desired to hear nothing more about it, but that we would draw up the instrument for him to sign. They came;--our minds had been before made up;--we drew the instrument Randolph carried it to him, and told him we all concurred in it He walked with him to the door, and, as if he still wished to get off, he said, "And you say you approve of this yourself?" "Yes, sir," says Randolph; "I do, upon my honor." He sent it to the House of Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the bill expressed passion, but the majority were satisfied, and both in and out of doors it gave pleasure to have at length an instance of the negative being exercised. Written this, the 9th April."

George Washington to House of Representatives, April 5, 1792

(Veto Message)

United States, April 5, 1792.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I have maturely considered the Act passed by the two Houses, intitled, "An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration,"⁴⁴ and I return it to your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections.

[Note 44: On April 6 the "Apportionment Bill," as it was called, was reconsidered in the light of the President's veto and failed to pass over the same. This is recorded in the Annals of Congress of that date. A digest of the opinions of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War, and of the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the bill, in the writing of Tobias Lear, is in the Washington Papers filed at the end of April, 1792.]

First: The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States, according to their respective Numbers: and there is no one proportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill.

Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand: which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the seperate and respective numbers of the States: and the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for thirty thousand.⁴⁵

[Note 45: From the "Letter Book" copy in theWashington Papers.]

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court"

I'm glad you brought that point up.
I have NOT read this bill so I only "know" what everyone says about it.
I DO however urge everyone to remember the BIGGEST threat to the United States is the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
There are several "domestic" issues that I have disagreements with
BUT in my opinion President Bush is still the best Commander-in-Chief that this country has seen in a long time.
I urge everyone to remain steadfast in their support of the Commander-in-Chief and the war effort.
"UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL" has special meaning during a time of war.

[Reagan Man]

He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional; he may think, like we do, that it IS constitutional, but unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

Well said Howlin and soooooooooooo true!

[Ole Okie]

He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional; he may think, like we do, that it IS constitutional, but unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

Howlin, just a little while ago, I posted on a different thread that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide what laws are and are not constitutional. That's the way the government of our constitutional republic is set up to work.

But it's a lot more fun to hyperventilate, isn't it?

[Uncle Bill]

"He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional"

"Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."

"When people lose faith in their institutions they trust to enforce the law, justice is no longer possible."
John Ashcroft - Source

"We’re of the people and by the people and for the people. That’s the motto of our campaign"
George W. Bush - Source: Remarks in Eau Claire, Wisconsin Oct 18, 2000

"I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they’re appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. I don’t believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

"I’m the only one on the stage who’s appointed judges. And my judges strictly interpret the Constitution. And that’s what I hope all of us would do."
George W. Bush - Source: Republican Debate in Durham, NH Jan 6, 2000

"I believe in freedom of speech"
George W. Bush - Source: GOP debate in Los Angeles Mar 2, 2000.

[RickyJ]

The job of vetoing bad bills is the president's.