[Howlin]

What a strange world you must live in where words change their meaning every day.

Well, I basically quoted the Constituion; and now you seem to have a problem with THAT, too? You're the one who went on the rant because evidently you don't even like what THAT says.

Do you want the Supreme Court to stop doing what they are suppose to do, or do you just want them to agree with you on every single isssue?

[NittanyLion]

Legislation progresses through four separate bodies; each has the responsibility to ascertain whether the legislation is in agreement with the Constitution. If at any time one of those bodies decided it is not, they have a responsibility to NOT allow the legislation to continue. Those bodies are, of course, the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court.

If a blatantly unconstitutional law such as this one reaches the Supreme Court, it demonstrates a dismal failure of the three prior bodies to uphold the Constitution.

[Sloth]

Do you want the Supreme Court to stop doing what they are suppose to do, or do you just want them to agree with you on every single isssue?

Your use of that expression -- 'agree with you' -- is very telling; you see such issues as mere matters of opinion, in that saying CFR is constitutional or unconstitutional is equivalent to saying the cottage cheese tastes good or bad. Nobody can objectively prove that cottage cheese tastes bad. If I hold that opinion, a dissenting opinion carries just as much weight and legitimacy.

Is this REALLY how you think of Constitutional issues? For the record, I don't want the Court to agree with me or any other human being. I want it to agree with the Constitution, and I expect it actually will in this case. Either way, it does nothing to justify Bush's violation of his oath of office.