[John R. (Bob) Locke]

They'd have to overrule it, so it makes sense to sign it.

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

And the Bush admin is using the War on Terror, in part, to get away with their shenanigans.

If there was no war, the neo con agenda would be DOA.

[The_Eaglet]

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

It's also a waste of our tax dollars on the time spent on what is at best a bureaucratic exercise, and the net effect (at best) would be a draining of the pocketbooks of patriotic citizens in litigation expenses.

[Southack]

"So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me."

Then you don't see the logic. Either the SCOTUS overrules the law, in which case you've achieved total political victory by removing the issue from your opponents without giving anything up, or else the SCOTUS rules that the law *is* Constitutional, in which case you haven't signed anything unConstitutional, per SCOTUS.

[carenot]

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

Me too. What the heck happened?

We have the House, the Senate and the Presidency. So how did this ever get passed unless the President wanted it?