I can understand disliking the bill on a number of counts, but if signing it is a violation of one's oath of office, then every time anyone's signed a bill later ruled unconstitutional (assuming that happens to this one), that person has violated his oath of office. It's simply too sweeping an indictment.
Or are you and Gautam really suggesting that Bush should get the full Clinton-treatment from the Republican party's rightmost members for this? :-) Marvin Long Austin, Texas Certainly that's true. There are many bills on which it is possible to have an honest disagreement on whether they are Constitutional or not, and there's nothing wrong with a President signing them and then finding out that he was incorrect in his interpretation. But: 1) This is not one of those bills and 2) He has _publicly stated_ his belief that this law is unconstitutional. To sign it, knowing that, is egregious. Obviously not. He hasn't actively subverted the law of the United States of America, lied under oath, committed multiple felonies, committed an act of war in order to cover up for his personal scandals, sold his pardon power for cash, and so on. But my opinion of him is lower now than it was a week ago. Gautam
