SI
SI
discoversearch

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (303199)9/14/2006 10:38:21 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580152
 
"Which isn't a tyrannical or inappropriate action if the president sees the act as unconstitutional."

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a president that power. Now the president can veto a law. But said president is also bound by a law unless the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional. In no way, shape or form is the president given the authority to decide a particular law doesn't apply. That isn't how our system is put together.



To: TimF who wrote (303199)9/15/2006 5:44:05 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580152
 
By executing those signing statements, he is saying he will not obey the law passed by Congress and will do what he chooses.

Which isn't a tyrannical or inappropriate action if the president sees the act as unconstitutional.

Its not the role of the president to determine if something is unconstitutional. That is the responsibility of the judiciary. If he believes something is unconstitutional, he needs to refer it to them.



HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News