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: tejek who wrote (303385)	9/18/2006 4:51:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

The president doesn't just have the ability not to enforce an unconstitutional law, he could legitimately be considered required to do so. If for example congress tries to censor free speech, the president could legitimately refuse to enforce the law. The 1st amendment doesn't say "Congress can law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, but the supreme court should overrule any such laws." The third amendment doesn't say "Soldiers may, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, until a court rules otherwise."