Following up on the Jonathan/Ramesh exchange, while there is a tradition in the Executive branch enforcing duly enacted laws and defending them in court, Dickerson is certainly not the only example of the Executive branch choosing not to do so. For example, Thomas Jefferson ordered his U.S. Attorneys not to enforce the Sedition Act expressly based upon his belief that the law–while duly enacted by Congress–was unconstitutional. Because interpretation of the Constitution is not the sole domain of the courts but rather is a duty retained by each branch, Jefferson’s view that he could interpret through failing to execute (the function of his office) is undoubtedly correct. Unfortunately, most politicians now believe that only the courts may pass on the constitutionality of law, leading, for example, numerous Congressmen to vote for McCain-Feingold after stating that they believed sections of it to be unconstitutional, and leading President Bush to sign the law despite issuing the same objections in his signing statement.