Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (303386)	9/18/2006 4:57:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1570972

I fault Bush for not vetoing the bills, but vetos aren't the only way that presidents can deal with unconstitutional laws. Also in practice some laws are next to impossible to veto. Too many things get thrown together in one law. And few presidents would be willing to do something like zero fund our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because of a fight with congress over the limits of presidential powers. Also a veto is insufficient. If an act of congress is an unconstitutional intrusion on presidential powers, it remains such an intrusion even if a veto is overridden. Now I'm not saying I automatically agree with Bush about all these laws being really unconstitutional. The best counterargument would be to look at each case and provide a strong argument that the bill does indeed pass constitutional muster. I imagine at least some of them probably do. I'm not saying "Bush is right", I am rather defending the idea of not enforcing unconstitutional provisions. Also while I can understand while Bush doesn't veto something like funding for our soldiers in battle, I have a hard time believing all the signing statements where on such vital bills. Bush is too reluctant to use the veto.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next