For me to read and learn you'd need to be showing me something I didn't already know. I never suggested that a signing statement is unconstitutional. I've never suggested a signing statement was unique to Obama. I never suggested a signing statement itself is illegal. I never suggested the President can't opine and acted based on his belief of what is or isn't constitutional. I suggested he doesn't get to declare law unconstitutional by fiat. Perhaps you should "read and learn" a bit from your link as well. It notes how the defense of the constitution is held by all three branches...and that jives with what I've said, but not what you've said. You suggested that people are making "False" accusations of violating the law, which can only be made based off a misguided belief that the defense of the constitution is not held by all three branches, but ONLY by the Executive and that because Obama declared this "unconstitutional" it simply is and therefore is not law. Which is ridiculous and factually untrue. The President can declare he believes something is unconstitutional and that he will not enforce it. That does NOT invalidate the law nor remove it from the books. That law is still there and he's still acting in violation of it. At which point either it can be ignored, gone along with, or challenged. The law only comes OFF THE BOOKS, and thus no longer "the law", at this point if it's overturned by the SCOTUS or repealed by the congress. The President gets to determine how to execute the Law, he doesn't get to determine what IS the law. That's a distinct difference and part of the seperation of powers. I understand you share the Presidents OPINION on the constitutionality of the law. You have that right. He has that right. Both of your OPINIONS have the same impact as to whether or not the Law is or is not "The Law" still: none. He has the ability to "reasonably interpret" the constitutionality of a law in order to execute the law. He has no power to repeal law by fiat. Which means if the law is still on the books, and he's acting counter to it, then allegations that he's violating the law are not false but accurate.
Whether or not that violation is problematic is an ENTIRELY different thing. People violate the law in Colorado and Washington and it's largely irrelevant because nothing is done to them. Doesn't change the fact they're violating the law. There are blue laws on the books that are LAW that people violate routinely. The fact they're not enforced doesn't mean the laws not being violated, it just means for a plethora of reasons the law is not being enforced. You want to speak of naive, we can do that. To suggest that congress agrees with the unconstitutional opinion regarding this law if they don't bring action against the President is ridiculously naive and basically demonstrates someone whose either truly ignorant of politics or who is being intentually obtuse. There are a multitude of factors that go into a congress challenging the President regarding a signing statement or an action he makes as it relates to a possible violation of a law or a constitutional interpritation that range FAR beyond whether or not they think they're correct in their beleif of the situation or not.
Sure, Moot.
