# Bush claims that he and he alone determines constitutionality of laws **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 30, 2006, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867 "2006-04-30T20:19:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/41 "2006-05-02T22:00:15Z")
> [@Max Torque](#): > > You caught me. I do indeed feel better about when a chief executive uses implied powers “to expand citizens’ rights” rather than when they’re used “to leave the door open in case we want to torture someone.” > > Yet somehow I don’t feel dirty about that. You should. Because your criticism of Bush should not be “He’s following his interpretation of the Constitution against that of the lawmakers!!” You don’t mind that. What you mind is that you don’t LIKE his interpretation – if you did, you’d be right on baord. So criticize his interpretation, not the fact that he’s putting himself at odds with lawmakers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/42 "2006-05-02T22:09:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Gavin NEWSOME, Mayor of San Francisco Newsom, not Newsome. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/43 "2006-05-02T22:11:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When Gavin Newsome was defying California law because he said his own interpretation of the state constitution was that it required recognition of same-sex marriage… I don’t remember too many of the names that appear in this thread decrying his actions. > > When Bush announces that he will potentially defy laws based on HIS interpretation of the Constitution, that’s an impeachable offense, though. It’s a fair point. Was there a pit thread? Anyhow, Newsome got stopped by the California Supreme Court. It wouldn’t bother me as much if Bush were as upfront about it as Newsome was, and if there were those who would make sure it got before a court to review if Bush’ interpretation were correct. You couldn’t help but know about Newsome’s interpretation of the California constitution. Signing statements are to brand new laws, and many of the signing statements are antithetical to what he claims to be enacting (I’m thinking here of the “ban on torture” Bush pretended to be embracing). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/44 "2006-05-02T22:13:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You should. Because your criticism of Bush should not be “He’s following his interpretation of the Constitution against that of the lawmakers!!” You don’t mind that. What you mind is that you don’t LIKE his interpretation – if you did, you’d be right on baord. So criticize his interpretation, not the fact that he’s putting himself at odds with lawmakers. There’s still a qualitative difference between “interpreting” the law in a way such as to _expand_ civil rights and interpreting it in such a way as to take them away or justify ignoring them. I can say, hypothetically, that I believe an executive has a right to err on the side of allowing the most possible liberty without having the right to abridge it beyond what is already explicit, and I can say that without being aribitrary or partisan or any hint of hypocrisy. If Newsome didn’t get decried here as much as you would like to have seen, maybe that’s because even if he was legally in error, he still wasn’t hurting anybody or abridging anyone’s civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/45 "2006-05-02T22:18:00Z")
> [@bup](#): > > It’s a fair point. > > Was there a pit thread? > > Anyhow, Newsome got stopped by the California Supreme Court. It wouldn’t bother me as much if Bush were as upfront about it as Newsome was, and if there were those who would make sure it got before a court to review if Bush’ interpretation were correct. You couldn’t help but know about Newsome’s interpretation of the California constitution. Signing statements are to brand new laws, and many of the signing statements are antithetical to what he claims to be enacting (I’m thinking here of the “ban on torture” Bush pretended to be embracing). I would say that Bush is being even more upfront than Newsom was. Newsom wasn’t in office when prop 22 was passed, and he didn’t have to sign it into law, but he certainly didn’t campaign on the platform of violating prop 22. Bush is telling us up front what he might do (not what he will do). If there are any laws that he wishes to interpret that involve public ceremonies, they’ll be just as noticeably as the gay weddings in SF. Your objection is as much about the nature of the laws in question as it is about the action of the executive in question. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/46 "2006-05-02T22:19:43Z")
> [@Richard Nixon](#): > > **Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal** Excellent precedent. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/47 "2006-05-02T22:19:57Z")
Bricker, kindly explain to me how this is less unconstitutional than a line-item veto, please. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/48 "2006-05-02T22:21:19Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There’s still a qualitative difference between “interpreting” the law in a way such as to _expand_ civil rights and interpreting it in such a way as to take them away or justify ignoring them. I can say, hypothetically, that I believe an executive has a right to err on the side of allowing the most possible liberty without having the right to abridge it beyond what is already explicit, and I can say that without being aribitrary or partisan or any hint of hypocrisy. > > If Newsome didn’t get decried here as much as you would like to have seen, maybe that’s because even if he was legally in error, he still wasn’t hurting anybody or abridging anyone’s civil rights. What about the civil rights of the voters of CA who legally put prop 22 on the books? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/49 "2006-05-02T22:42:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > What about the civil rights of the voters of CA who legally put prop 22 on the books? Waaahh, the poor bigots think they lost their right to discriminate. :rolleyes: The law is unconstutional. Taking away other people’s rights is not itself a civil right. That’s a retarded argument. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/50 "2006-05-02T22:46:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. Captain STUBING > 2. Played by Gavin MacLeod > 3. As opposed to Gavin NEWSOME, Mayor of San Francisco [sing song] \*I whooshed Bricker I whooshed Bricker\* [sing song] > [@Bricker](#): > > Unlike officials in California, where the state constitution requires them to follow the law, even if they believe it unconstitutional, until a court has spoken, the President has an independent duty to construe the Constitution as he sees fit, absent a federal court ruling to the contrary. Cite? “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Or how about: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” from Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution. . Seems to me that that oath says he’ll follow the law, even if he disagrees with it. No one is above the law. We’re not talking about a situation where the President refuses to enforce a law he legitimately believes is unconstitutional, we’re talking about a President who secretly violates the law, and then decides to tell someone he thinks it’s unconstitutional after it comes to light. In your view, the President is not bound by the law at all, as long as he determines, no matter the legal legitimacy of his argument, that the law is Unconstitutional. No matter if no administration had ever argued it, or that the DOJ had offered an opinion that the statute was Constitutional, or that no court that ever considered the statute found it unconstitutional. No matter that he violated the law without seeking a judicial opinion, did so in complete secrecy, and never informed anyone that he thought it was unconstitutional until after he was caught? And you have the audacity to claim others are political shills? Tis to laugh. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/51 "2006-05-02T23:02:14Z")
Yup, we sure didn’t hear a lot of _that_ from this Most Usual of Suspects during the _last_ administration, did we? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/52 "2006-05-02T23:35:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Waaahh, the poor bigots think they lost their right to discriminate. :rolleyes: Bigots don’t have the right to vote? Voting is the most fundamental of all civil rights in a democracy. Without it, you don’t have a democracy. > [@](#): > > The law is unconstutional. Taking away other people’s rights is not itself a civil right. That’s a retarded argument. So, you get to decide what is and what is not constitutional, but Bush doesn’t. I get it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/53 "2006-05-02T23:41:21Z")
I think that what Bush has done is highlight a flaw in the system of separation of powers. Or maybe it’s a feature. But it’s been there all along, and I still say that what he’s doing is diffenet in degree, not in kind, from what his predecessors have done. The fact is, the administration has to interpret the laws, and Congress can’t legislate away the presidents constitutional authority. I’m afraid that we’re stuck with the situation where the SCOTUS needs to establish precedent on where the powers of the other two branches are delineated. That, or Congress has to exercise it’s power to impeach. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/54 "2006-05-02T23:41:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, you get to decide what is and what is not constitutional, but Bush doesn’t. I get it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Actually, I’d think that the 14th ammendment comes into play, rather than **Dio** ’s views. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/55 "2006-05-02T23:44:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Bigots don’t have the right to vote?[ Voting is the most fundamental of all civil rights in a democracy. Without it, you don’t have a democracy. Civil rights are not subject to popular referendums. They are automatically granted by the Constitution. Citizens – bigots or not – do not have a right to “vote” away other people’s rights. > [@](#): > > So, you get to decide what is and what is not constitutional, but Bush doesn’t. I get it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I’m allowed to have an opinion on it even if I can’t enforce it. I said that Newsom was legally in error, by the way. I was just making the point that it’s absurd to compare that act (which was really symbolic more than anything else. He knew it wouldn’t hold up) to the gross violations committed by Bush. Nobody was hurt by what Newsom did. Temporarily being thwarted in an effort to rape other people out of their rights does not make anyone a victim. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/56 "2006-05-02T23:45:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Actually, I’d think that the 14th ammendment comes into play, rather than **Dio** ’s views. No way I’m getting into another debate about that in this thread. Suffice it say that reasonable can and do disagree on how to interpret that amendment wrt marriage. Until and unless the SCOTUS rules on it, it’s up to the legislatures to deal with. And I’ll wager anyone here that the SCOTUS will not rule in favor of gay marriage anytime in the next 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/57 "2006-05-02T23:48:02Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Actually, I’d think that the 14th ammendment comes into play, rather than **Dio** ’s views. Exactly right. It’s my opinion that gay marriage bans violate Equal Protection no matter how many sophist, disingenuous arguments people come up with to wave it away. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/58 "2006-05-02T23:49:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No way I’m getting into another debate about that in this thread. Suffice it say that reasonable can and do disagree on how to interpret that amendment wrt marriage. Until and unless the SCOTUS rules on it, it’s up to the legislatures to deal with. > > And I’ll wager anyone here that the SCOTUS will not rule in favor of gay marriage anytime in the next 20 years. They’ll still be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/59 "2006-05-03T00:01:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No way I’m getting into another debate about that in this thread. Yes, you know what would happen. > [@](#): > > Suffice it say that reasonable can and do disagree on how to interpret that amendment wrt marriage. If there were a reasonable view against civil rights, you’d have a point. As there isn’t, you don’t. > [@](#): > > Until and unless the SCOTUS rules on it, it’s up to the legislatures to deal with. Or Congress. SCOTUS never \*has \* to take it up. > [@](#): > > And I’ll wager anyone here that the SCOTUS will not rule in favor of gay marriage anytime in the next 20 years. Not given your party’s recent success in packing it, of course not. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867/60 "2006-05-03T01:11:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, you know what would happen. I’d win. > [@](#): > > Or Congress. That already happened with DOMA. What is your point? > [@DtC](#): > > Civil rights are not subject to popular referendums. They are automatically granted by the Constitution. I disagree. We don’t have a list of civil rights handed down from on high. There is no other way to determine civil rights other than by referendum (eg, constitutional amendment). While I strongly support legislation in favor of SSM, I don’t agree that it’s a civil right. Sex between consenting adults? Yes. Cohabitation with consenting adults? Yes. Marriage? No. And most legislators in the US agree with me on the status of SSM as a civil right. In addition to the federal DOMA, 39 states have enacted similar laws. While an anti-SSM constitutional amendment wouldn’t pass, you can’t honestly believe that a “SSM as civil right” amendment would. It would be crushed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-claims-that-he-and-he-alone-determines-constitutionality-of-laws/354867.md?page=4)