Instead, Bush may have played shrewdly and boldly, I'll grant him that... but it wasn't for an inherent desire to serve the American people. If it had been so, this bill might as well have been DOA to his desk, for all the shenanigans that McCain et al pulled. It wasn't a "service" thing, and the long term will show it for what it is: a "political" move, which is always about gaining/maintaining power... a very boring, useless thing really.
Bush should have studied history more. Particularly the story of Alexander at Gordium: Alexander didn't pussyfoot about trying to solve the riddle of the knot. He thought outside the world's view, and cut it. A very wise, bold stroke, it has been said.
Bush had the same opportunity with CFR. He could have sliced through it with his pen. He could have been the president who now and forevermore chose not to think inside that tired, stagnant box.
And he blew it.
And I wonder if we'll ever get a president in the near future who could rise above the mediocrity that plagues both the Oval Office and America as a whole. "Going with the flow" isn't bringing us any new vitality, that is certain.
Must respectfully disagree, my friend. For this reason: unconstitutional, however it is sliced, is still unconstitutional.
That's right. And he knew it. But signed it anyway, hoping the Supremes would do his dirty work for him. So a president who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States signed a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation. And Republicans clap and cheer. Unless I was delusional during the 1990s, this was one of their chief complaints about Clinton: disregard for the Constitution. I guess it's OK when Republicans do it.
Regarding your comments, on a number of occasions, I've expressed my preference, that being a big, fat veto.
On the other hand, signing legislation while volunteering reservation or doubt over its ultimate disposition in our legal system is worlds removed from a High crime and/or misdemeanor, which would demand the transgressor's removal from office via impeachment and trial as outline in Article II, Section 4.
Anyhoo, thanks for your thoughtful reply, bro, and God bless =^)