On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > 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.
Or an ordinary act of political compromise under the circumstances. (I really can't believe I'm defending Bush, but here goes.) It is not Bush's job to treat himself as the last bastion of Constitutional interpretation. If he makes his argument and fails to sway Congress or the public, then signing the bill is little more than a concession to democracy. The most likely explanation is that he thinks the bill is unconstitutional but doomed in the long run and, on the whole, only a small tweaking of the electoral landscape. (That is, a rearranging of the institutional obstacle course he and his peers use to thwart democracy, not a dismantling.) > 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. On the contrary. Bush is guilty of conspiring and succeeding the thwarting the electoral laws of the nation on a scale Nixon would envy. But lets not quibble over felony and treasons. My only point is that, if violation of the letter and intent of one's oath is the standard by which we decide to impeach (as opposed to mere technical criminality) -- the publicly stated reason Clinton's offenses were considered impeachable at the time -- then that standard applies equally to both Clinton and Bush. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
