Posted on 08/10/2006 6:53:48 AM PDT by IrishMike
The Constitution requires every president to take an oath in which he pledges that he will “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The American Bar Association has suddenly decided that presidents are required to ignore that oath, and has denounced this president for seeking to defend the Constitution. What’s the issue? After Congress passes a bill, the president can sign it or veto it. Assume that he concludes that the bill accomplishes important objectives, but one or more parts of the bill are either clearly unconstitutional or might be unconstitutional if a provision, ambiguous as written, is read to mean one thing rather than another. The president signs the bill, but issues a “signing statement” that he will not enforce or comply with unconstitutional provisions and he will construe ambiguous provisions in a way that renders them constitutional. Presidents have been doing this for at least 150 years. The ABA is troubled by the practice, and wants you to be troubled, too. This week, its House of Delegates voted to denounce the use of this kind of signing statement. After all, the ABA’s task force explained, the president should know his place: He must enforce all the provisions of a statute “unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal.” The theory seems to be that only judges are qualified to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution provides that neither the federal government nor any State may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted that provision to create constitutional rights to homosexual sodomy and abortion. Can anyone really believe that this is less far-fetched than the interpretations of the commander-in-chief clause by Bush ?
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
The idiots on the bar forget that the president and Representatives have just as much authority to determine Constitutionality as does the Supreme Court. The bar's problem is that they only control the courts and think they have a monopoly on understanding the law.
The idiots on the bar forget that the president and Representatives have just as much authority to determine Constitutionality as does the Supreme Court. The bar's problem is that they only control the courts and think they have a monopoly on understanding the law.
.
.
.
Very good summary.
Then he does what his oath requires him to do -- V-E-T-O.
Mebbe it's time to resurrect the original 13th Amendment. No titles of nobility, etc. ;>
President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating a law (the Tenure of Office Act) which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
what his oath requires him to do -- V-E-T-O.
.
.
.
Absolutely, and frankly a lot more often than the once he has used it this past 6 years.
...President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating a law (the Tenure of Office Act) which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
.
.
.
Thanks, I didn't know that little tid-bit.
There were 7 charges, only one was the "Tenure of Office Act". Some of the others consisted of charges in newspapers.
The official Johnson fired didn't fall under the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson didn't appoint the guy, rather he had been appointed by Lincoln.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Art. II, Sec. 1
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Art. VI Thus the President *must not* enforce any law which he believes is in violation of the Constitution, to do otherwise would be in violation of his oath of office.
Similarly any CongressCritter that votes for a law he/she believes to be Unconstitutional is in violation of their oath of office.
All this, and the Supreme Court as well, didn't help much with the Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Fiengold), or with the plethora of gun control "laws".
Yes he should, but should his veto be overridden, he would still be obligated not to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law.
Thanks for the education.... Ping
You two make me realize I've a lot of reading to do !
.
.
Thanks again.
There had been talk of impeachment for some time and even a vote on the floor of the House which had failed...but it was immediately after Johnson fired Edwin M. Stanton, thus "violating" the Tenure of Office Act, that the House voted to impeach--and afterwards drew up the 11 articles of impeachment. So there were various other charges but the most important item was violating the Tenure of Office Act. Of course it should not have applied to Stanton since he was appointed by Lincoln, but they didn't let little details like that get in the way.
None of us should forget that as citizens, we are obligated support & defend the US Constitution.
---The Oath of Citizenship---
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.