Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
What mechanism then does the Constitution provide for the removal of an unconstitutional law? There has to be one. A Constitution that doesn't provide for means to insure that it can be enforced is useless.

I'd also suggest that your contention that an unconstitutional law must be enforced unchallenged by a President is far more dangerous than giving the President the ability to ignore laws he finds unconstitutional. If the electorate disagrees with the President's decision they can remove him in at most four years.

In either case as a practical matter, as I said, there are some 213 years worth of history of Presidents refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional and legal decisions agreeing. It's a part of the way our government works, like it or not. I believe the President Constitutionally has that power and I believe any reasonable reading of the Presidential Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause inevitably lead to that conclusion. How can one seriously argue that enforcing a law suppressing freedom of the press or demanding the internment of a class of American citizens is "defending the Constitution"? More making a mockery of it.
I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand, there is no express means of removing an unconstitutional law. There is the long process of electing a new Congress that can repeal the law. So it seems that the founders felt that it was up to the people to make it known to Congress that they don't want that law. As far as the President, he would be acting unconstitutionally himself if he ignored laws.

They all need to follow the process and functions according to the Constitution. This is something I feel that our governemnt has strayed way too far from. This country would have to be radically different if we had a Congress that would pass a veto proof law shutting down freedom of the press. If we elected people like that, I would think that the Constitution would be meaningless to the people.