And you wouldn't sound so much like a barbeque infatuated empty ten gallon hat Texan if I could figure out what in the H you were talking about. Did Ronald Reagan violate his oath when his DOJ defended Roe v wade when he stated it was an unconstitutional law? You can't have this oath argument both ways. If a president violates his oath by signing a law he feels may be unconstitutional then a president violates his oath by enforcing ANY law he feels may be unconstitutional. If your definition of the oath is correct, Every president from Washington to the present time should have been impeached.
Sigh. Asked and answered. It's the JOB of the DOJ.
Well, you might have a point, but RR didn't sign the legislation, did he? Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision, not a bill sent to his desk by the Congress. Frankly, I thing RR signed some unconstitutional laws, including the 1986 Gun control law among others. But that was then, and this is now. Bush lied, and he signed a piece of legislation which is in gross violation of the Constitution. But it isn' the first unconstitutional law he signed ("Patriot act"} and given his record, won't be his last.
So tell me. If you think signing unconstitutional laws is ok, then I assume you would have no problem if Bush signed a law banning ownership of handguns, or making it a felony to refuse quartering a National Guardsman in your home during a declared terrorist emergency, or making Catholocism the state religion and banning any Muslims, Jews or Baptists from practicing their religion?
Good point. Bears repeating: if a president violates his oath by
signing any law he thinks is unconstitutional, he also violates his oath by
enforcing any law he thinks is unconstitutional. If it's immoral and wrong to sign any law a president thinks is unconstitutional, it's immoral and wrong to enforce any law a president thinks is unconstitutional.
Taking this to its relentlessly logical conclusion is mighty ugly, friends.