Replies

Your citation does not support your argument. There is no Constitutional requirement that a President veto a bill he doesn't like. There is no Constitutional requirment that the President perform his own review for constitutionality independent of SCOTUS and Congress. That's what's interesting about Marbury v. Madison - whether there would be a review and if so by who were issues the Framers left us to work out later because the Constitution doesn't say. The oath of office does not address this issue. Claiming a President who signs a bill with a provison later held unconstitutional has violated his oath of office is pretty lame - nothing in the Constitution or the SCOTUS cases suggests any such thing.

Thanks for calling me "childish" though. Like getting carded at the liquor store, it makes me feel younger.

I found the language, and cited where. I refuse to post it, because of your childish demands. -- And I concur with Rowdees latest post, #562, on the oath issue. -- Bush has tarred himself with his own words.

Your citation does not support your argument. There is no Constitutional requirement that a President veto a bill he doesn't like.

That is not my argument. As quoted at #562, Bush admits constitutional reservations, yet will not veto. Thus, he violates his oath, imo.

There is no Constitutional requirment that the President perform his own review for constitutionality independent of SCOTUS and Congress. That's what's interesting about Marbury v. Madison - whether there would be a review and if so by who were issues the Framers left us to work out later because the Constitution doesn't say. The oath of office does not address this issue.

-- He didn't 'faithfully execute' or 'protect & defend', imo.

Claiming a President who signs a bill with a provison later held unconstitutional has violated his oath of office is pretty lame - nothing in the Constitution or the SCOTUS cases suggests any such thing.

He admitted its constitutional problems before he signed. Learn to live with that truth.