Replies

He can also make a very real argument that by going on record as stating as he has, that sections of this bill are unconstitutional, the best way to prevent another president sweeping aside his veto and signing it a later date is to let the USSC codify his belief and put the issue to rest.

This presumes that Congress would not override his veto on this legislation. It may yet be an open question as to whether they would have the votes to make the override. But I still do not believe the President should take the cop-out of "letting" the Supreme Court "codify" a veto he might make on Constitutional grounds. I say again: Congress has an implicit duty to refrain from writing and passing legislation that is clearly enough unconstitutional, but if they should do so it then becomes the President's implicit duty to reject such legislation, say in plain language that he rejects it on very solid Constitutional ground, and let it revert to Congress's head to justify why they thought the matter addressed by the bill in question was so grave as to declare in effect that the Supreme Law of The Land means nothing astride its import.

The constitution gives the President a qualified veto that he can exercise while in office to in effect suspend legislation during his time in office. While we may agree that it would be emotionally satisfying for Bush to veto the bill it is NOT the only way he has at his disposal to uphold his oath of office.

I did not even consider any such thing as "emotional satisfaction" when arguing in favour of a presidential veto of this CFR bill, notwithstanding that certain parties (like Mr. McVain, for example) would get tremendous such satisfaction from seeing this abomination become law. My concern was and remains Constitutional satisfaction. This bill deserves to be vetoed, and on very solid Constitutional ground, and I concur with the Orange County Register editorialist who suggested that passing and signing this bill with the idea that the Supreme Court would do the dirty work of shooting it down, while they yet seem on the alleged side of the alleged angels (supposedly), is a cynical cop-out.

(I don't believe, by the way, that a veto is a President's only means of upholding his oath of office, but I do believe his oath carries an implied mandate, nevertheless, to veto legislation he knows to be unconstitutional. And, for anyone who might be eavesdropping on our discourse and wondering, just because previous Congresses have written and previous Presidents have signed knowingly unconstitutional legislation, it does not justify in any way, shape, or form doing so now. Any further than the fact that previous Presidents had slipped around on their wives and may have used the apparatus of the government to abet such slipping around did not justify Bill Clinton's doing likewise and committing perjury, suborning of perjury, and obstruction of justice on its behalf when it became relevant in a civil lawsuit involving him.)