What do you say to my bottom line question, posted above?
I used the example I did precisely because it was Bush's opinion of the bill. I'm saying it seems to me you disagree with him vehemently on the conclusion that the good in the bill outweighs the bad. Cato, I feel your pain and I am not being sarcastic. I, too, am passionate about our rights and freedoms as Americans. But I just can't agree that we can or should expect a president to determine a bill's constitutionality. He can determine its value---and in this, in your view, he apparently failed and big-time---but constitutionality? No.
I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree. The branches of government have been out of whack for years, but that's not the point. The President wasn't meant to be Congress' rubber stamp. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a President.
AMENDMENT ONE:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So what part of "make no law" don't you or Bush understand, anyway?
And I bet you thought that Clinton arguing over what the meaning of "is" is was ridiculous too, right?