23 September 2006

Rule of Law? It Can't Happen Here!

They're such absolute scum. This contempt for the rule of law is simply impeachable. (Not that I'm for it; just saying.)

Tony Snow:
No, as a matter of fact, the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.
The poster's comment:
Ergo, when the Supreme Court — in its role as "an arbiter" of the constitution — ruled unanimously against Richard Nixon on the Watergate matter, Nixon should have said, "Well, thank you for your opinion but you're wrong" and ignored them. And when they ruled against Bill Clinton on the Paula Jones matter, he should have issued a signing statement or otherwise overruled them. If and when they rule against George W. Bush, it will mean he's right and they're wrong.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home