Actually, one could argue that the president is allowed to judge whether a bill is constitutional or not. If he sincerely believes that a bill is unconstitutional, he has the right to veto it. What he does not have the right to do is sign the law and then effectively use a line-item veto to cross out parts that he thinks are unconstitutional.

Similarly, a member of Congress who believes a bill is unconstitutional has the right to vote against it.

But those are regarding bills. Once something has been passed into law, judging its constitutionality is the judiciary’s job.

But perhaps the emper– I mean President straddles both the executive and judicial branches the way the Vice President belongs to both the executive and legislative branch and is therefore answerable to neither (TM Dick Cheney)?

Why do we still pretend we have a constitution when this is the way it’s treated?

And what is up with the comments like the one above (#2) that are random quotes from your post?

Do the abuses of the Bush administration constitute a precedent for the President-elect to follow? It is important to answer this question before the election rather than finding out the hard way.

A new WRI policy note reviews the practices of previous administrations in the context of relevant constitutional and legislative provisions, and attests to the vulnerability of a system of delicate checks and balances to abuse of power. It brings to light significant negative impacts that have resulted from an opaque and unchecked presidency and makes the case for better governance in the next administration. Available at: http://www.wri.org/stories/2008/10/presiding-with-principle-restoring-good-governance-us-executive-branch

Remi Moncel
World Resources Institute