CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Is it time to stop endlessly being “shocked” by these yet? Obama, like Bush, argues in his signing statements that the sections of law he intends to violate are unconstitutional. The problem is not that either one of these presidents is necessarily always wrong or that such questions can ever be decided to everyone’s satisfaction. The problem is that the Constitution requires the president to veto a bill or sign and faithfully execute it. The time to argue against the constitutionality of a provision is before a bill is passed or upon vetoing it. Such an argument can even be made upon signing a bill. It just can’t be accompanied by a declaration of the power to violate the law.
While I agree in principle, it is quite a conundrum. A President who signs a bill he believes to be unconstitutional, in whole or in part, has violated his oath of office. There is no excuse or justification for this. At the same time, if there is a law already on the books which a President believes to be unconstitutional, how can he faithfully perform his duty to uphold the Constitution unless he refuses to enforce the law (as he seeks to get it removed from the books)? The Constitution nowhere delegates to the Supreme Court the authority, much less the sole authority, to rule on the constitutionality of legislation.