[colorado tanker]

Excellent point, which leads to another question. The duty of the Solicitor General, as the lawyer for the President and the Executive Branch, is to argue to SCOTUS to uphold the constitutionaliy of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. If the S.G. personally believes a law is unconstitutional but argues to the contrary in accordance with his duty, has he violated his oath of office?

Taking the oath clause and trying to convert it into some kind of Constitutional duty to veto or refuse to enforce a law produces absurd results, which tells you the argument is flawed, which is why not a single S. Ct. has has even mentioned it. People are taking a policy dispute and trying to make a constitutional crisis out of it, which it ain't.

[Bitwhacker]

If the S.G. personally believes a law is unconstitutional but argues to the contrary in accordance with his duty, has he violated his oath of office?

That's an excellent question of ethics that I had not considered, and must admit that I overlooked.

But Pres. Bush was the one who campaigned on a presidential veto of any bill that contained language that stepped on First Amendment protections, and it is more important than a simple policy difference.

[Texasforever]

The duty of the Solicitor General, as the lawyer for the President and the Executive Branch, is to argue to SCOTUS to uphold the constitutionaliy

Not so, the SG vets the cases to argue for or against or to stay out of.

[Texasforever]

From Seth Waxman former solicitor General

The Solicitor General is the only officer of the United States required by statute to be "learned in the law."⁽³⁾   He is one of only two people (the other being the Vice President) with formal offices in two branches of government.⁽⁴⁾   And perhaps more than any other position in government, the Solicitor General has important traditions of deference to all three branches.

The Solicitor General is of course an Executive Branch officer, reporting to the Attorney General, and ultimately to the President, in whom our Constitution vests all of the Executive power of the United States.   Yet as the officer charged with, among other things, representing the interests of the United States in the Supreme Court, the position carries with it responsibilities to the other branches of government as well.   As a result, by long tradition the Solicitor General has been accorded a large degree of independence.

To the Congress, Solicitors General have long assumed the responsibility, except in rare instances, of defending the constitutionality of enactments, so long as a defense can reasonably be made.⁽⁵⁾ With respect to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General has often been called "the Tenth Justice."⁽⁶⁾   But alas, although I get to participate a lot, I do not get a vote (and in some important cases I could really use one).   No, the Solicitor General's special relationship to the Court is not one of privilege, but of duty -- to respect and honor the principle of stare decisis, to exercise restraint in invoking the Court's jurisdiction, and to be absolutely scrupulous in every representation made.   As one of my predecessors, Simon Sobeloff, once described the mission of the office:

The Solicitor General is not a neutral, he is an advocate; but an advocate for a client whose business is not merely to prevail in the instant case.   My client's chief business is not to achieve victory, but to establish justice.⁽⁷⁾

[Texasforever]

This could lead to a very interesting case. You could have 3 former Solicitors General arguing 3 different cases. From McCain who has retained Seth Waxman to argue the entire bill is constitutional to Ken Starr also a former SG arguing that the entire bill is unconstitutional to Ted Olson only defending those parts of the bill he has determined are constitutional.