A law cannot be vetoed a Bill can.I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.
I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.
Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.
I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.
You really want to get in to a semantic skirmish after how badly you've already face planted in this thread?