That's technically incorrect. Presidents have the authority to interpret the constitutionality of a bill by simply not signing it. Also, the limitations you place on the executive branch as laid forth in your argument in a more broad fashion are certainly not followed by past presidents e.g. E.O.'s and P.D.D's
In other words, I am not saying you are wholly incorrect, except to say that he would not abuse PDD's and EO's which is itself constraining himself to the constitution, whereas others have not, and furthermore he can simply not sign something he feels does not pass constitutional muster. That in and of itself is far superior of a result than past administrations and the country would be better off as a result just based on those two things alone.
Moreover you are totally leaving out the bully pulpit and him being able to focus attention on issues and getting the people to lobby their representatives which is not inconsequential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
The Congress and the Executive branch are required to follow the Constitution as interpreted by the Federal Courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. Ron Paul does not have the authority to interpret the constitution now nor would he have the authority to do so as President.
|