Replies

It is unprincipled to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and then to sign a bill that you say violates the constitution. If the constitution doesn't matter, let's just say so.

You are getting into a corner. If Bush violated the constitution by letting this bill go to the USSC what have past presidents been guilty of by enforcing laws that they are on record as believing unconstitutional?

Yes, that's hardly a new revelation. And it's not something to strive for and accept, is it?

That's the point: we thought when we elected Bush that we were getting someone who actually would bring us back to honoring the constitution. If we're again supposed to accept the inevitable and believe that presidents are not expected to do what they are bound by law to do, then I guess none of the rest of us has to obey the law, either.

"Just because Bush did not veto CFR and on reflection decided to involve the 3rd leg of the constitutional government to exercise its constitutional duty does not make him "unprincipled" it just meant that he decided on a different course of action than you may have." texasforever

It is unprincipled to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and then to sign a bill that you say violates the constitution. If the constitution doesn't matter, let's just say so.
Incidentally, what you're arguing is bordering close to Neitzche's existentialism--that is, that there is no right and wrong, only circumstances to which we adapt in whatever way that pleases us. I hope you don't really believe that, 'cause if you do, I take you up on it on another thread.
160 posted on 7/29/02 1:18 AM Pacific by Gelato

To: Gelato
You are getting into a corner. If Bush violated the constitution by letting this bill go to the USSC what have past presidents been guilty of by enforcing laws that they are on record as believing unconstitutional?
161 posted on 7/29/02 1:21 AM Pacific by Texasforever

Interesting exchange, and indeed, one worth its own thread.

Far to many conservatives on this forum seem to believe that pragmatic interpretations of constitutional specifics can be used to violate its basic principles.
There is a 'corner', -- and the political 'ends justify means' crowd are the ones standing in it.