Obama's signing statement

pvolcko wrote:If a president doesn't enforce a law believed to be unconstitutional then how can anyone try to get the law overturned in a court?

I think the founding fathers deliberately left Presidential law enforcement vague in that Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution includes the order to the President of the United States:



…"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"



Thus I guess the only way Congress could force any President to follow it's laws is through Impeachment, which is exactly what should have been done in GW Bush's case. Congress has ultimate authority to remove a President from office. A President has no way of removing a Congress! (all that's needed it the guts to do the right thing!)

Devil505 wrote:

pvolcko wrote:If a president doesn't enforce a law believed to be unconstitutional then how can anyone try to get the law overturned in a court?

I think the founding fathers deliberately left Presidential law enforcement vague in that Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution includes the order to the President of the United States:



…"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"



Thus I guess the only way Congress could force any President to follow it's laws is through Impeachment, which is exactly what should have been done in GW Bush's case.

And I'll assume you support this philosophy extended to this administration as well?

Double post

Devil505 wrote:And I'll assume you support this philosophy extended to this administration as well?

Of course I do but I think President Obama is a moral intelligent man who will never deserve the impeachment that was almost done to Nixon & should have been done to Bush.

Devil505 wrote:

Devil505 wrote:And I'll assume you support this philosophy extended to this administration as well?

Of course I do but I think President Obama is a moral intelligent man who will never deserve the impeachment that was almost done to Nixon & should have been done to Bush.

So it depends WHAT he says in his signing statements not the fact that using them at all is blatantly unconstitutional?

EDIT: I'll clarify my point by saying that I KNOW nearly every president has used them, but the ones like GWB used, that allowed him to exempt himself from following the law are the ones I am talking about.

jpete wrote:So it depends WHAT he says in his signing statements not the fact that using them at all is blatantly unconstitutional?

If the only way of preventing abuse of Presidential SS's is impeachment then yes, of course it depends on what any President does with them. MOST Presidents are moral men & don't abuse their powers & thus this has never been a problem, BUT when an immoral President abuses his/her power, the ONLY way we (the people) have of defending ourselves is through the impeachment provisions of the Constitution.