I already noted my argument that if the legislative branch believes that the executive has misinterpreted its legislative intentions or is not properly enforcing the legislation it has passed that the legislature has political recourse...enact new legislation. Further, that the executive issues a signing statement or an EO directing the executive branch to interpret or enforce legislation in some way is in no way an abuse of his constitutional authority to direct and supervise the executive branch.
That's because you're ignorant. The Unitary Executive theory is nothing more than that the President possesses an explicitly constitutional authority to direct and supervise the Executive Branch. There is no constitutional question here.Of course, the real issue here is whether the concept of the "unitary executive" is itself constitutional. I would argue that it's not.
That is one option. The ABA has presented an argument similar to this. Have you read it. I have. And it suffers from major flaws. When a bill has become law, the President has an obligation under the Take Care Clause not to enforce provisions of that bill that are unconstitutional. That is true whether he has signed the law, whether it has been enacted in an override of his veto, or whether it was enacted before he became President. In those cases in which he has signed the law, a signing statement is one proper means of fulfilling his Take Care obligation.If Bush feels that he should not enforce parts of legislation because he feels that it is unconstitutional, his recourse is to veto the legislation.
His oath is to also defend the Constitution.He does not have the option to decide which parts of it he will enforce, since he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Because you're a constitutional scholar, right? ~Sheesh~ You have no authority to assess whether the ABA has addressed the issue in a way consistent with the Constitution. The ABA's position is merely and coincidentally your preferred opinion at the moment. This is nothing more than naked appeal to authority.
The ABA task force's central conclusion is that the President's only choice, when presented a bill that has a provision that he believes is unconstitutional, is to veto the bill. Here's the task force's reasoning (on pages 18-19): (A) The Presentment Clause (Article I, section 7, clause 2) provides that every bill which shall have passed both houses of Congress shall be presented to the President for signature or veto. (B) Under the Take Care Clause (Article II, section 3), the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (C) Therefore, the President is obligated to faithfully execute all bills that become law; he may not sign a bill into law and refuse to enforce one of its provisions.
The problem with this reasoning is that proposition C does not follow from A and B. The easiest way to recognize this is to understand that the Constitution is one of the "Laws" that the President "shall take Care … be faithfully executed."
I ask because I noticed absolutely no differences in my level of civilization after engaging in the ritual of marriage.
Was there somehting that occured, some magical switch, that was hit when I went through the ritual that I am, for whatever reasons, unaware of?
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Cannot two men enter into another form of contractual obligation together?
If so, then why do we create special circumstances for the social contract?
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.