Replies

I know we have had a previous discussion about this matter, but I can't resist. /;-)

You stated to Triple, "Post the EXACT words where it say that right here, please." That remark was in response to his/her quote from the Constitution that states in other words "The POTUS alone can decide not to sign or veto - for whatever reason he ALONE sees fit."

Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html - Click Here states:

"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 ..."

Furthermore, in that same Constitution, at Article II, Section 1, paragraph 8 it is stated:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

I hope we established in previous exchanges that I am not a Bush Basher, and neither am I a BushBot. I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility and, in my and quite apparently others views, violate The Oath of Office, required by that same Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend."

To be quite frank your defense of him asserting it is not his duty/responsibility to return bills which he disagrees with, for whatever reasons he has, is WRONG.

You and the other unabashed defenders of GW are to be lauded for your loyal support to the man and are correct about voicing your concerns over the thought of people ending their support of him without considering the consequences.

However, your attempt to assert that we are wrong to hold his feet to the fire over Constitutionally guarantees as important as his absolute support of our First Amendment right to free political speech, does our common cause no favor.

I have enjoyed a camaraderie with you, Dane, and others in our quest over the years to be rid of the foul stench placed upon our Republic by William Jefferson Clinton and his ilk. But I really don't understand all the hyperbole in your attacks upon people, whose posts I have read that are quite honestly, as I, in a deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements.

While I am not at the point of saying my quandary will for once and ever cause me to not support him in further elections, I can tell you, my friend, it is close.

The revelations I continue to experience, that when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of "political power and capital" that there is little difference between the two major political parties continue to grow.

Again, argue your support of the "man" for whatever reason, but please don't insult people who seem to have a .... (looking for an non-inflammatory adjective) ... "different" view of the Constitution and Presidential "duties" as laid out in that venerable document.