|
overmann
Male,
18-29
Southern US
Joined: 16 yrs, 7 mos ago
2,120 Posts
|
|
|
|
15 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/25/07 - 11:54:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, because it is the Judicial's branch to actually protect (through interpretation) the Constitution. The President should, however, carry out his duties with the Constitution in mind; that is, not go out of his way to violate the Constitution, and the same goes for Congress.
|
|
|
15 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/25/07 - 11:58:21 PM EST (GMT-5)
Tentatively, I'll say "Yes." It's not his duty to interpret, but it is his oath to "uphold" it.
|
|
|
15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 1/28/07 - 7:05:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
i'll agree with overman
|
|
|
15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 1/28/07 - 7:08:21 PM EST (GMT-5)
not in the least bit...the president's top duty is to protect his own ass from being ridiculed by the millions of voters  |
|
burnteffigy
Female,
18-29
Midwest US
Joined: 17 yrs, 5 mos ago
15,542 Posts
|
|
|
|
15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 1/28/07 - 7:40:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
Absolutely. That's why the Presidential Oath of Office is as follows: "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." As IRL said, it's not the President's job to interpret the Constitution but it is absolutely his job to uphold it. |
|
stentorian
Male,
13-17
Western US
Joined: 16 yrs, 10 mos ago
853 Posts
|
|
|
|
14 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Tuesday 9/18/07 - 2:27:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
No, the Constitution is outdated and in need of revision. Until then it cannot be fully protected.
|
Share 
