Article: No need for Congress, no need for courts 2169

Snit

i did, and the valid criticism is about the point i had above about signing statements (did you read the links? if so, why do you not seem to know that the factual criticisms are exactly on the topic i mentioned above) , the other links are just anti bush rhetoric. there's a consistent theme criticising him for the use of singing statements to 'bypbutt any law that disagrees with "his interpretation of the Consbreastution"'- don't these writers know the oath of the president? the president's oath is to uphold the consbreastution- if that doesn't demand he interpret it, how's he going to do that?! you may disagree with how he interprets it, but at least he's letting you know upfront how he's reading the laws and how he intends to interpret it.

i don't agree wmany of bush's statements he's made in the signing statements, but i have no reason to believe he's doing it in a way that suggests he's above the law, rather than he's doing it in a way that he believes upholds the law, nor do i have a reason to believe the converse. nor do you. but of the two of us, i'm the only one not jumping to conclusions. ;D