Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (303250)	9/15/2006 1:11:09 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571035

"If the legislature acts outside of its limits the law it makes is invalid." In your zeal to nitpick this to death, you have lost sight of an important point, he signed all these things into law. If he truly believed they were unconstitutional, why sign them? Why not stand up and say "this is a clear violation of the Constitution and I am not going to sign it"? Instead, he signs it and attaches a signing statement, something there really isn't a legal justification for, especially to object to the law, which in the past no one really bothered to read.

To: TimF who wrote (303250)	9/16/2006 4:12:12 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571035

The constitution gives powers to the president and to the legislature. If the legislature acts outside of its limits the law it makes is invalid. Its invalid immediately before any constitutional review by the judiciary. Nonsense. Its the judiciary that decides if the law is invalid, not the president. So then when the legislature passes a law, it is constitutional until proven otherwise by a court. If the president doesn't like the law, he can veto it and send it back to Congress. He doesn't have the right to sign a bill with his fingers crossed behind his back.......and then later claim he thought it was unconstitutional.