The Constitutional basis for accusing the President of violating his oath? If a President signs a bill he believes has some "flaws" and about which he has "reservations" he has just violated his Constitutional oath of office. No citation to any provision of the Constitution for that whopper.
And you say I'm short on ammunition? Did you or did you not accuse the President of violating his oath? The basis for your accusation is your fantasy that if a President signs a bill passed by Congress that he believes has "flaws" and about which he has "reservations" he has violated his oath of office? You think there is any President who hasn't done that? Hey, I'm not the one a few rounds short of a full clip here.
So impeach President Bush. I hope you'll like the government you get.
They can never answer the question of a president enforcing laws signed by previous administrations. If their definition of the "oath" is as they define it, a president that enforces the Brady Bill, the voting rights act and a host of bills that Republican Presidents have never failed to enforce but are on record as saying they are unconstitutional, then by their own definition they are also "traitors" including Ronal Reagan.
That is, after all, just one lil' on part of what he swore on a Bible to protect and defend. And by making the statement he did before he signed the damn thing, he knew he was wrong.....and yet he did it.....he passed the buck off....rather Clintonesque, I think.....and it appears his supporters grovel on their knees just as the Perverts defenders did.
Set yourself loose from party and vote and support people who actually do know what the Constitution is about and who actually do love the Country.
I presume you also believed the bit about appoint strict constructionists, too? I mean, he IS such a constitutional scholar, right?