That's very naïve and misinformed.
Read and learn.....
"....A President that places the statutory law over the constitutional law in this instance would fail in his duty faithfully to execute the laws. The principle is equally sound where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the President has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.
To say that the principle is not equally sound in this context is
to deny the President's independent responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution. It is to leave the defense of the Constitution only to two, not three, of the branches of our government. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274 (1990) (“The Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they presumably desire to follow its commands.”); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 613 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“
Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do . . . .”).
Similarly, a surprising number of newly enacted statutes seek to require the approval of a congressional committee before execution of a law, despite well-settled Supreme Court precedent that such “legislative veto” provisions violate the Presentment and Bicameralism Clauses of the Constitution, art. I, § 7.
See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 958 (1983)....
More than 20 years after that clearly controlling Supreme Court decision, unconstitutional legislative veto provisions remain so common that President Bush has had to raise the issue in approximately 55 of his 126 constitutional signing statements. See, e.g., Statement on Signing the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 41 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1799, 1799 (Nov. 30, 2005) (“
The Constitution requires bicameral passage, and presentment to the President, of all congressional actions governing other branches, as the Supreme Court of the United States recognized in INS v. Chadha (1983), and thus
prohibits conditioning executive branch action on the approval of congressional committees. ......"
http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondocs/presidential-signing-stmt.pdf
http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel...0-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf
Along with historic precedence going back to James Monroe, the SCOTUS has also ruled that the POTUS has the authority to "reasonably" interpret the constitutionality of a statute or law in order to execute the law. If you put some thought into it you'd realize the POTUS has to interpret the legislation so that he knows what he's signing into law...and once signed he still has to interpret a "new" law in order to execute it. doh!!!!
The SCOTUS also ruled that signing statements that challenge the constitutionality of the law were totally legal. Ergo, Obama was perfectly within his authority to challenge the constitutionality of a law in a signing statement and in it to inform congress if and how he intends to execute the law.
As stated above, it is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers for congress to legislate that a president must get a congressional committees approval before he can execute a law.....and that is exactly what congress tried to do in the defense budget bill when they legislated that he give congress 30 day notice so they could approve or deny the transfer of military prisoners to a foreign country. That directly violated the presidents authority to negotiate with foreign countries to exchange prisoners as the war comes to end.
