|
Politicians make decisions based on their own code of morals all the time. To say that because it has religious roots means it is disallowed is bigoted. Every law is based on morality. To veto it on any account is acceptable.
Bush did not attempt to force a bill through Congress saying that private money was not permitted to be used on stem cell research. That would be crossing the line. But a President can veto whatever the hell he wants, and a Congress can override that veto. Period. This is the way the Constitution functions. There is no way any court would or could look at the interpretted motives of a Presidential veto and say it was vetoed for an Uncontitutional reason. It matters not why it was vetoed. It is within Presidential purview. It is Constitutional, whether one likes it or not.
The "separation of church and state", which was never intended to be an antireligious test, as the clause which prevents any religious test from being administered as a condition of holding office would seem to suggest, simply does not apply in this instance. Bush has done nothing to establish a religious preference by vetoing the bill. There is nothing in the Constitution saying a veto must be justifiable by some sort of set of standards.
This being said, I'm not even in favor of the veto. But there are far better grounds for separation crowd than complaining that a veto had a religious motivation.
|