Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
Can’t get the President to agree with you the old-fashioned way?
Then sue him:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.
Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com (Note: here’s a link to that piece –ST).
“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”
It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”
[...]
In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.
In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.
The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.
Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.
And this is just one more way that the Democrats in Congress could delay the funding our military desperately needs.
It’s like they’re trying to fulfill their own predictions about Iraq turning into another Vietnam.
Despicable.
Speaking of funding, have you read about the Dems’ latest tricks on trying to get the President to sign the war supp? It’s called “short-term funding.” Of course, if the Dems had their way, the military would be on their way back home before they ever had the chance to make use of it.
Hat tip: Curt at Flopping Aces
RSS feed for comments on this post.
15 Responses to “Can’t get the President to agree with you the old-fashioned way?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Already been tried…Gore 2000.
“a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.”
Well that would be exactly the case, now wouldnt it?
Seems that this issue has nothing to do with Pelosi not being able to get what she wants out of Congress, but with the President not carrying out the law that was passed.
How can you defend that?
This heffer has the nerve to try this crap, she is a piece of work sucking up to kos an move on loons.
Heard they were investigating her husband in San Fran cuz her pork favored him, oh, big SURPRIZE here.
Lets see how the msm IGNORES this completely.
From what you have posted it would appear that when you refer to getting “the President to agree with you the old-fashioned way” you are referring to a President following a law the he himself passes.
Remind us again when that became an antiquated, obsolete notion. And why such a standard will remain in place for the next administration.
It is funny how this is playing out like Korea and Vietnam. After Congresional activism in the 1950’s we have not won a war/conflict that lasted longer than 1 year. The biggest difference with our Iraq war is that the president requested and recieved authorization from Congress. They declared the war and will try very hard to blame it all on President Bush. They are finding though that the ‘will of the people’ is not to quit the Iraq war. What does a Democrat do when they can’t win at the polls? Why they take it to the courts of course.
We as a nation do not deserve the honor and sacrifice of our military. May God bless our military, and may they forgive us.
Who Will Answer
“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”
This is actually his right to do so under our system of checks and balances.
According to the constitution, if the president refuses to uphold a law passed by congress, wouldn’t the court be obligated to break the deadlock?
Not so, Michael: the President doesn’t get to change the law as he signs with a signing statement codicil. Per the Constitution, he can only sign the bill into law, veto it, or do nothing.
Legislating from the White House is most assuredly not part of Constitutional checks and balances.
Actually, td has come very close to the right answer. And it appears that the leftists in today’s incursion have no real clue what a signing statement even is.
Yes, the president is charged with enforcing the laws. But he also has an duty to defend the Constitution, according to the oath of office.
So what if he can’t be in compliance with the Constitution if he enforces a particular law? What if there’s a part of it that he believes to be unconstitutional? That’s where the signing statement comes in. Basically, it’s where the president states what he thinks the law means. And it’s also where he can dispute the constitutionality of any part of it. And at that point it’s up to the courts (which is where td touched on the answer).
By the way, one has to wonder where the likes of Tano, Kilo, and jpe were when Bill Clinton was issuing many more signing statements than Bush has. Don’t think so? It’s true, according to the American Presidency Project at UCSB (hardly an outpost of the VRWC):
Who forgot to cover the fruit bowl last night?
One has to wonder where you are right now.
You’ve pointed out that Clinton used more signing statements than Bush and directed us to a website that points out that the number isn’t the issue:
And you’ve talked about a president having to do this to protect the constitution while pointing us to information like this:
Once again, blatant hypocrisy from a leftoid, imagine that! It’s not the number, it’s what they are for you bleat and whine. Get a grip, it’s common for Presidents, and you only have a problem with it when Bush does it. BDS on full display, foaming at the mouth, ignoring any and all malfeasance in your own party. You and your ilk have lied to yourselves for so long that you are no longer even capable of telling truth from fiction, right from wrong.
Yes, Kilo, I saw those items. So what? Actually, you’re confirming one of my points – that even a UCSB site has information supporting Bush. I have no problem with linking sites that have information favorable to both sides.
But dig a little deeper.
You’ll find that signing statements go all the way back to James Monroe. You’ll find that as far back as Andrew Jackson and John Tyler, presidents were issuing signing statements pointing out the unconstitutional aspects of bills sent to them – including the exact kind Bush is making.
You’ll find that even Lawrence Tribe, an icon to liberals, has no issue with signing statements. I notice you didn’t blockquote that.
As for the “kind of statements” – the controversy is political, period. My point holds – when Clinton made the same kind of statements, you held it as holy writ. And Pelosi never threatened lawsuits.
As for the ABA task force statement, that has neither force of law nor credibility. ABA has long since abandoned a nonpartisan stance and is essentially an arm of the Democrat party.
To come full circle, I have no problem linking to sites with some balance in their information. I’m only interested in the facts. That’s “where I am.”
So they contradict you on the two issues you raised. Really, was what I wrote confusing ?
Why ? We just established their prior use or how frequently they are used isn’t the issue. What purpose would this deeper digging serve other than avoiding the issue ?
You can notice me not knowing or caring who that is while you’re at it.
I’ve never expressed any support for any policy or action of Bill Clinton.
But that’s irrelevant as this wasn’t your point.
You’re suggesting that Bush needs to sign these statements where bills may contain unconstitutional terms and does so for that reason.
Yet there seems to be an explanation missing for why this is the case even where the constition is disregarded by the executive on far broader issues.
Er… okay. How is it relevant to the bipartisan assessment they made before becoming an evil constitution reading partisan cabal ?
Good option that. See if you had said your were only interested in whether the law or the consitution were boeyed then you’d have been in a whole lot of trouble.
Such as? Got any examples? So far all you’ve thrown at us is a series of vague hints and drak suspicions. See if you can absorb this idea: just because Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like something doesn’t mean it’s illegal or unconstitutional. It’s put up or shut up time. Show us the evidence. If there is any, which I doubt.
Wrong again. You’re the one that started with the assumption that a signing statement was intrinsically something illegal. I’ve produced evidence to the contrary, but your eyes, ears, and mind are closed. Like the global warming cultists, you’re determined that any contrary evidence is to be disregarded at best, demonized at worst. To repeat: put up or shut up.