[rmmcdaniell]

The writer apparently does not give him credit for sending this mess to the courts. It has been bandied about as a political issue by the dems for 12 years. Enough is enough.

WSJ is still on the learning curve about "mis-underestimating" President Bush. Passing the bill so that it can shot down in the courts is a piss poor excuse for dubya signing it. What if it isn't declared unconstitutional? The president has a responsibility to veto unconstitutional legislation. No Excuses!

[Teacher317]

Passing the bill so that it can shot down in the courts is a piss poor excuse for dubya signing it. What if it isn't declared unconstitutional? The president has a responsibility to veto unconstitutional legislation. No Excuses!

Bump to your response, with one minor addition. It is far moer likely that SCOTUS would refuse to hear it (they review lesss than 1% of the cases presented to them), making it permanent. Bush was foolish to sign it.

[Quicksilver]

The president has a responsibility to veto unconstitutional legislation. No Excuses!

Incorrect. All bills are potentially unconstitutional.

[Ignatz]

Passing the bill so that it can shot down in the courts is a piss poor excuse for dubya signing it. What if it isn't declared unconstitutional? The president has a responsibility to veto unconstitutional legislation. No Excuses!

I couldn't agree with you more! The President should have went on national TV and decried the bill as unconstitutional, reminded people of his oath of office, and refused to sign it. He should have then read the list of senators and congress-critters that voted in favor of it, polital party notwithstanding.