Well, obviously Bush is learning. In his secret wiretapping program, he threw out the laws, procedures and guidelines in order to do whatever he wanted. And now he, along with his GOP cronies, are simply throwing out the procedures for MAKING laws that all of us learned back in eighth grade social studies. A budget cut of $2 billion that's going to crucify the elderly and infirm simply bypassed the whole pesky House/Senate voting thing and was signed into law by Bush.
If Bush were truly upholding the constitution as he vowed to, he would have kicked it back and said, "The buck stops here. If you guys can't do YOUR job properly, I should at least do mine. Vote on it and send it through the proper way, and then I will sign it or veto it, as the Constitution dictates I am empowered to do."
He didn't. He is demonstrably, indisputably in violation of his oath. What the hell kind of country is this where a blow job is an impeachable offense, but a screw job isn't?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101763.html?sub=new
Well, of course this shouldn't surprise anybody.
To Bush, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely 'guidelines' that don't need to be followed if Bush gets a boner over something, like knocking down free speech.
Tony is trying to get similiar things through, a "right" for ministers to "adjust" legislation without going through all the Commons and Lords palaver...
...wonder who's learning off whom?
If I were conspiracy minded, I'd say we're seeing an overt attempt to hijack two of the world's biggest governments by the Illuminati.
Wait, I AM conspiracy minded.
I'm amazed that I keep having to say this. It seems, just as this adminstration does something that makes me say "nothing they do from here on out will surprise me," they do something that surprises me. This isn't some legally vague, undefined powers of the president thing here. It doesn't get any more black and white than this. The House and the Senate must both approve a bill, which the president signs into law. It's not one house or the other...it's both, and they must approve the same version of the bill. There's a big difference in $2 billion, and between 13 and 36 months of (if I understand the provision) coverage for medically necessary equipment.
How long before the people take back their government?
The problem with impeachement here is that no crime has been committed, that I can see. Upsetting people isn't a crime, any more than oral sex is. (Perjury is another matter, of course.)
Still, it seems like an open and shut case that the bill will be voided. Hardly the first time the courts will have voided a bill based on constitutional grounds though, so talk of impeachment seems a bit overwrought.
I expect that some will see this as me just being a Bush apologist so here's what you need to do; find the crime, get a hold of a lawyer who is willing to take on Bush (look in the phonebook under the letter L), and bring it on.
If nobody does this--and even in the article nobody even mentioned the possibility--well, there's your answer. No.
But all overreaching aside, the law should be sent back to the House for reconciliation. Even if the courts do declare it legal it sets a bad precedent.
The problem with impeachement here is that no crime has been committed, that I can see. Upsetting people isn't a crime, any more than oral sex is.
In that there's no criminal statute with established penalties that's been violated, then that's true. But I would say that "ignoring the plain language of the Constitution" is about as an egregious breach of the public trust as one can get.
The problem with impeachment over this issue is that Congress is equally guilty since they "certified" the bill and allowed it to go into effect without being passed by both houses. So, is Congress going to impeach itself?
Some quotes from the article are fairly telling about the attitudes of the Republican leadership:
"We believe that the law is constitutional and that this is yet another political attempt by the Democrats to stop us from cutting spending," said Ronald D. Bonjean Jr., a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
Excuse me? Democrats haven't controlled shit for the past five years and what's the result? Deficits exploding beyond anything even St. Ron could've dream of. Does anyone here honestly believe that this was an honest attempt by the GOP to cut spending? These cuts were almost certainly offset by increases somewhere else or by another round of tax cuts for the Forbes 100 crowd.
And another:
"The issue would be solved if the House voted again, this time on the version that passed the Senate. But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill, containing cuts in many popular programs, and it would be that much closer to the November election."
Jesus Christ on a pogostick, this is what the country has come to? It's okay to just ignore the black and white language of the Constitution because the alternative to take another politically risky vote?
I guess no one should be surprised. After all, A.G. Gonzales' primary defense for ignoring the FISA law amounted to it being too much paperwork.
"I expect that some will see this as me just being a Bush apologist so here's what you need to do; find the crime, get a hold of a lawyer who is willing to take on Bush (look in the phonebook under the letter L), and bring it on."
The first reason for Impeachment listed in the Constitution is for Treason. Defined by Websters, Treason is
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Seems to me, he's certainly met the first. As an elected president, he's been entrusted by the electorate to govern the country as Chief Executive. He's failed, by some estimations, he's failed miserably. He's failed to uphold the trust of the people that put him in power.
With this latest act, in conjunction with the GOP leaders of the Congress, he's met the second defintion, which more people would likely find to be an offense worthy of Impeachment. Together with the leaders of congress, they have taken an act that will illegally deprive the people of this country of $2 billion in aid and assistance. Bear this in mind: three men have now acted in concert, in front of the whole world, to usurp the consitutional powers of this country for their own agenda. If that's not treason, than nothing is.
But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill,
Which is to say that they no longer care about the political process in favor of expediency that is NOT sanctioned by our Constitution.
In the end, it shows how little these assholes actually care about this country and laws. Bush included.
"The problem with impeachment over this issue is that Congress is equally guilty since they "certified" the bill and allowed it to go into effect without being passed by both houses. So, is Congress going to impeach itself?"
I don't know that the bulk of the House or Senate is even aware that different bills were passed. The story just says that the leaders of Congress certified the bill. I take that to mean each respective house's GOP leader certified it. I'm hoping that we hear, over the next few days, every Democrat, and more than a few Republicans, calling for the President to rescind his approval of this bill, acknolwedge the mistake, and send the Senate version back to the House for approval.
Um, Bill, doesn't Dubya's blatant failure to do his duty to "uphold and defend the Constitution" as he "solemnly" swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury? True, the man didn't swear in a court of law, but he did take his oath in front of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Now, I'm no expert but it seems that taking an oath in front of ANY judge for ANY reason and failing to uphold that oath should be a criminal offense since that judge retains his legal authority until he no longer holds the office. (Hell, lying on any of your tax returns is a criminal offense even though you merely sign a statement--not witnessed or affirmed by anyone--acknowledging that a lie on the tax return constitutes perjury. If THAT is enough for the Feds to lock you up and put you on trial, then certainly taking an oath in front of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court should be similarly culpable.)
Well, Josephw, you have to realize that perjury is only a crime when a Democrat does it to cover up a blowjob. Not when, say, a Republican does to cover up the leaking of classified information.
If it's not a bill that should have legally been presented to the President (because it did not pass both houses), he cannot veto it same as he couldn't sign it. So contrary to your criticism, Peter, Bush cannot be abrogating his constitutional duties by not vetoing the bill, because to veto it he'd have to be able to sign it, and if he can sign it then there is no reason for him to veto it.
Once it has been certified and brought to him, I think the President has no choice but to presume it's been legally passed. After that, it's in the court's ballcourt to decide how to procede.
Look, I'm just trying to keep it real here; if you are right that this is an impeachable offence, well, IMPEACH him!
I'm not seeing even the usual moonbat places taking any note of this, so I'm thinking that it's just Not That Simple. But we'll see...
From what I've seen the best you can hope for is that the courts will (if it gets that far) declare it invalid and send it back for a House vote, as should have been done.
You can argue that any time a president signs a law that is later declared unconstitutional he has "perjured" himself or committed "treason" but that's not how it works.
I'm with you on the folly of the way the law was passed (for that matter, I'm sure many of you called for the impeachement of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc when they used Executive Orders in place of the time consuming process of getting actual laws passed. Right? As Paul Begala put it "Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool.")
here's the thing. I'm convinced that there is one thing that will absolutely ensure that the Democrats go down in defeat come November. It isn't the capture of Bin Laden. It's if they get so nutty that they decide to make the election a referendum on impeaching Bush. The moderates and independents who (quite rightly) are unimpressed with how the Republicans have handled majority rule will flee from any such craziness and that will be that. And if the Democrats lose THIS one, with so much in their favor...I'm not sure the party can take it. It may descend into total self destruction.
I'm not a big fan of the Democratic party. I think they are their own worst enemies and deserved a few years in the widerness (though I was wrong that it would sober them up. Quite the opposite, it seems). But it will be a disaster if either party has full power. I know, I know, some of you think we are there already. You're wrong. But it could happen.
"Once it has been certified and brought to him, I think the President has no choice but to presume it's been legally passed."
Wanna buy a bridge?
Nate, I'm with you, but in fairness, it would appear that Bush was aware of the irregularities, so that would be a poor argument on his part.
>>Jerry C: "Wanna buy a bridge?"
Heh. Funniest comment yet.
For those interested the case referred to in the piece can be found here: http://www.justia.us/us/143/649/case.html
It's called Field v. Clark for those Googleminded. Add the year 1892 and you should find it.
It's pretty dense, so good luck getting through it. In looking it over, here's the gist: The Supreme Court recognizes, as should/do other branches of government, a respect and assumption that the other branches are operating within their Constitutional authority. The 1892 assumption was that, given a bill that has been certified by both houses, signed by their respective presidents, and signed by The President, and given over to the public archives, it's law, and not subject to review by the Supreme Court as to whether it was correctly passed or not. The assumption was that it was passed correctly, with the reasoning being that it would be less harmful to let the rare bill become statute through mistake than the harm caused by allowing judicial review of every bill signed by the president, to ensure that Congress properly passed it. The SCOTUS even cites some precedent that looked at similar issues, including some language the pretty much says that it's better to move forward even in the face of such errors than to open up the entire process and send it back to square 1. So, from a historical perspective, the government's playing the same tune today that was being played 106 years ago (the bill was passed in 1890, I think).
There are some major differences here. In 1892, the court was talking, in regards to the claims made by the petitioners, that in order to accept petitioners' contention, it must accept that a conspiracy of the presidents of congress, and the Executive, their staff, and any respective committees, to violate the terms of the Constitution. It suggests that the error in Field was clerical or inadverdant, and was not discovered prior to presenting the bill to the president.
Which seems to be very different from today. If the story is accurate, the error was discovered BEFORE the bill was certified by the Congressional president, and that Executive was aware of the error prior to signing the bill. The presidential assumption of Constitutional authority was no present...he knew that the bill being presented to him was not in fact the bill passed by the House. Moreover, the President of the House knew that it was not the bill passed by his peers.
Additionally, I don't know how much time had passed between the time the Field bill was ennacted, and the challenge raised. The language used by the court suggests that the law had been in effect for some time, creating a situation where any overturning of the law might have a significant impact. Presently, we've got a budget act that won't take effect until some time months from now. There's more than enough time to take action to correct the mistake now.
This is a fairly serious matter. I don't know if it calls for Impeaching Bush. It certainly calls into question whether or not the GOP's president of the House should retain his chair...or even his job.
Once it has been certified and brought to him, I think the President has no choice but to presume it's been legally passed.
From what I've read, bush was told the bill didn't pass properly, but he signed it anyway. This is just another case of bush saying 'I'm gonna do what I damn well please, wether it's legal or not'
Um, Bill, doesn't Dubya's blatant failure to do his duty to "uphold and defend the Constitution" as he "solemnly" swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury?
I've been saying this for some time. But some bush apologist always comes up with some half assed reason why it's not the same thing.
I do believe the original intent of the Constitution writers was that a law be passed by both House and Senate. It'll be amusing watching some of the usual "original intent" suspects try to spin this.
Let's see...the government has attacked a country on false premises...left an American city to rot after a natural disaster...banned abortion in several states...paved the way to throw even LEGAL immigrants out of the country...and now is basically committing treason against itself.
**** this, I'm moving to Iceland. No one hates Iceland, do they?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2006 02:59 PM
Nate, I'm with you, but in fairness, it would appear that Bush was aware of the irregularities, so that would be a poor argument on his part.
And that would be an almost Clintonian argument.
Heh. I'm just trying to picture W. trying to make a Clintonian argument.
"See, 'is' just isn't what it was. You have to know if it 'is' or if it ain't. Look, don't question my integrity! I put food on your family! What do you think this is, a federal program????"
I'm with you on the folly of the way the law was passed (for that matter, I'm sure many of you called for the impeachement of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc when they used Executive Orders in place of the time consuming process of getting actual laws passed. Right? As Paul Begala put it "Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool.")
Paul Begala's moronic comment aside, executive orders aren't statutory laws, they're internal regulations that apply only to the respective agencies under the executive branch, not people outside the government. For example, Clinton's famous changing the Pentagon's previous "no gays allowed" policy to "don't ask, don't tell" was by executive order. That meant the Pentagon had to follow it, but it had no legal force outside of the Pentagon. For example, the Boy Scouts weren't required to adopt "don't ask, don't tell."
As defined here, an executive order is:
"Executive Order: A declaration issued by the president or by a governor that has the force of law. Executive Orders are usually based on existing statutory authority and require no action by Congress or the state legislature to become effective. At the federal level, Executive Orders are published in the Federal Register as they are issued, and then in Statutes at Large and title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations each year."
And from Wikipedia:
"Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers."
So, while executive orders have the force of law, they are generally internal orders to executive branch agencies are issued under the authority of the president as chief executive. There are limits to what a president can with an executive order. He can use to clarify how the executive branch is going to carry out a statute passed by Congress, but he can't use it to amend or repeal a statutory law. He can use it to change personnel policies, but not to appropriate money to spend on a project. The Constitution requires that all money appropriations need to be passed by Congress.
Since this is an appropriations bill, this is a clear case where a bill was not passed according to the requirements of the US Constitution, and yet was certified by Congress and signed the president. Maybe it isn't an impeachable offense, but the law is clearly invalid.
Posted by: Queen Anthai at March 27, 2006 03:51 PM
No one hates Iceland, do they?
I am a member of the Let's Annihilate Iceland For No Particular Reason Club. So yeah, they have their enemies.
There was a cartoon in the Milwaukee paper recently with the heading "Reason NOT To Impeach". Below the heading-a picture of President Chaney.
Look, I'm just trying to keep it real here; if you are right that this is an impeachable offence, well, IMPEACH him!
Bill, you enjoy oversimplifying the situation to a "I double dare you!" type situation which, not surprisingly, is best left to kids on the playground.
Obviously, nothing can be done with morons... I mean, Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.
Nothing will happen unless the dumbasses... er, Democrats, manage to regain both houses. Which we can only hope, because Bush more than deserves to be thrown out of the White House on his puppet ass.
Yet, Bush keeps finding more ways of making himself look like a complete idiot in the process. His incompetence is matched only by his arrogance and disregard for the laws of this country.
There was a cartoon in the Milwaukee paper recently with the heading "Reason NOT To Impeach". Below the heading-a picture of President Cheney.
Which is why impeaching Bush really just amounts to switching from Dick running the government from his "undisclosed location" to running it from the basement of the White House.
Is there any way we can impeach Cheney first?
In other news, Scalia once again demonstrates that he doesn't understand the meaning of the term "impartial judiciary" by mouthing about a case before SCOTUS has heard the arguments.
Question: If the detainees in GITMO aren't entitled to a jury trial because they're prisoners of war, as Scalia contends, then doesn't that turn Bush's argument that the Geneva Conventions don't apply because they're not real prisoners of war on its head?
From what I've read, bush was told the bill didn't pass properly, but he signed it anyway. This is just another case of bush saying 'I'm gonna do what I damn well please, wether it's legal or not'
Perhaps you miseed what I was saying. If the bill is presented to him, legally, he has to act on the presumption it was passed legally, even IF he was aware of the disputes over its passage (I'm not so sure he was, but that'd besides the point). From a Constitutional point of view, once it is on his desk it has to be considered passed by both houses by the President.
Um, Bill, doesn't Dubya's blatant failure to do his duty to "uphold and defend the Constitution" as he "solemnly" swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury?
Perhaps this point is a bit subtle and you're missing it, BUT -- Bush can only veto a bill that has been legally presented to him after passage by both houses. For him to veto the bill because it wasn't actually passed by both houses would be a paradox -- if he hasn't the power to sign the bill into law, he hasn't the power to veto it. Once it's given to him, he has no choice but to presume it has been given to him legally. He can do nothing else with it.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 27, 2006 04:08 PM
Bill, you enjoy oversimplifying the situation to a "I double dare you!" type situation which, not surprisingly, is best left to kids on the playground.
Craig, I disagree with Bill's politics more often than not. But you are entirely incorrect about his comportment in this forum.
You've taken his "impeach him" statement entirely out of context. If you look at Bill's posts, read them and take that statement in context, you can see that he is making an intelligent argument. He is asserting that while what Bush did may have been improper, it is not an impeachable offense. I'm not saying it's an argument that you cannot disagree with, I'm simply stating that it's a well-reasoned argument. There's a difference.
By the way, after wrongly accusing Bill of a schoolyard mentality, you do nothing but proceed to call people names. You are frankly engaging in the very behavior you have wrongly accused Bill of exhibiting.
If you think you have a superior argument, prove it by stating that argument in a logical fashion.
I'm curious. Is this the first time in our nation's history a typo has been made so that the bill voted on by the house is different from the one by the senate? if so, that is utterly amazing. if not, what have we done in the past?
Once it's given to him, he has no choice but to presume it has been given to him legally. He can do nothing else with it.
I'm not so sure it's that simple. If he knew it wasn't legally passed, then I believe he can simply refuse to act on it for procedural reasons, much in the same way that the SCOTUS can decline to hear a case that was improperly filed.
>If he knew it wasn't legally passed, then I believe he can simply refuse to act on it for procedural reasons,
There is no "refuse to act" on it, the Constitution only gives him a handful of choices. He could refuse to sign it, in which case it would become law in 10 days anyway. Eitherway, the President's can only act in a manner presumptuous that the bill has been properly passed.
...he can simply refuse to act on it for procedural reasons...
Sometimes referred to as the "pocket veto". If the President does not sign a bill into law within a certain period (I'm thinking it's ten days, but I don't have my copy of the Constitution handy at the moment), it dies on his desk.
Bush couldn't even manage a pocket veto of a bill he knew to be on his desk illegally. What exactly does he think the Executive does again?
Oh, give me a break. PAD, you have got to be kidding. You sound worse than the Jerry Falwell attack video against Clinton.
As a conservative, I do have a huge problem with the out of control spending by both parties. There is no question the Republicans have done nothing to stop it, and with control of both houses and the White House, they don't have an excuse.
But to say Bush is trying to do an impeachable offense is just laughable. The fact that Congress did not give him a valid version of the bill is not his responsibility. That is not just passing the buck, that is recognizing that there is separation in the three branches. Perhaps there were other options. But Bush did not personally take charge, overturn the constitution and try to push through his own legislation. So to call for impeachment for his signing a bill that was put on his desk is a complete joke.
You don't agree with his politics. I get it. I didn't agree with Clinton. In both cases, there is a thing called a term limit, so as your clock graphically illustrates, there is an end in sight.
Iowa Jim
>Sometimes referred to as the "pocket veto". If the President does not sign a bill into law within a certain period (I'm thinking it's ten days, but I don't have my copy of the Constitution handy at the moment), it dies on his desk.
You have it backwards, my friend. If he does not return it, it becomes law.
Posted by our good friend Iowa Jim:
In both cases, there is a thing called a term limit, so as your clock graphically illustrates, there is an end in sight.
Yeah, unless he gets the U.S. nuked first. I mean, who WOULDN'T want to nuke us at this point?
Curious thing. I just checked 4 major news sources on the web (places like CNN, not Fox News), and none of them have any headlines clearly dealking with this issue. With the feeding frenzy that followed the Cheney hunting accidental shooting, I would not even suggest it won't come, but it is seems premature to talk about impeachment when the issue doesn't even seem to be on the radar.
I mean, who WOULDN'T want to nuke us at this point?
The Israeli's. :-)
Iowa Jim
Sorry, I forgot to turn off the bold.
Original: I mean, who WOULDN'T want to nuke us at this point?
My answer: The Israeli's. :-)
Iowa Jim
"Curious thing. I just checked 4 major news sources on the web (places like CNN, not Fox News), and none of them have any headlines clearly dealking with this issue. "
That's because this issue is over a month old. It was all over the place in February. I'm suprised people are just now jumping on it.
The big question will be on where the typo was made. I imagine the shorthand version of the bill (which is pretty much the only thing congressmen read, for the most part) had the correct number, and the long version had the wrong one. It would be interesting to find out what reps thought they were voting on.
"But to say Bush is trying to do an impeachable offense is just laughable. The fact that Congress did not give him a valid version of the bill is not his responsibility."
Of course not. Because he's not a real President, a real leader, or a real chief executive. He is an empty suit who does precisely what he is told. We saw that in agonizing detail when he sat on his ass for seven minutes on 9/11.
Now a REAl president, a REAL leader, a REAL chief executive says, "I'm sorry, no, this bill was not passed properly. It shouldn't be on my desk. I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution, this violates the constitution, therefore I cannot be a party to it. I'm vetoing it; either overturn the veto if you can, or else bring it back to me done right this time."
But Bush cannot do that, because he's ineffective, clueless and useless. This should ideally be the last straw. He should be impeached for it.
But he won't be, as long as he's got apologists and suck-ups and blind followers to cover his back and claim that the simple act of upholding the constitution is "not his responsbility."
PAD
Peter, ever consider putting your name on the Democratic ballot for 2008? :)
You're both half right on the Pocket Veto.
C-SPAN Congressional Glossary
A Pocket Veto is when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.
Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.
If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature.
***************************************************************************************************
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/pocket_veto.htm
Pocket Veto - The Constitution grants the President 10 days to review a measure passed by the Congress. If the President has not signed the bill after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature. However, if Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, the bill does not become law.
You've taken his "impeach him" statement entirely out of context. If you look at Bill's posts, read them and take that statement in context, you can see that he is making an intelligent argument.
I don't disagree with that, but I certainly get the impression from his "Impeach him" comment that, if we're to be considered seriously, we better follow through on it.
Which is why I came up with the "dare" mentality. But then, this is only my opinion.
By the way, after wrongly accusing Bill of a schoolyard mentality, you do nothing but proceed to call people names.
Listen, if you don't like the fact that I fairly and equally called Democrats and Republicans morons and dumbasses... well, you're either going to live with it or not.
I'm sick and tired of our entire lot of politicians sitting on their asses in DC. They're worthless and certainly undeserving of leading us. And they prove it day after day.
Bush just manages to find ways to prove it than the rest of them.
If you don't think I should call them what they are at face value, then it's time they prove they're not dumbasses and morons.
The fact that Congress did not give him a valid version of the bill is not his responsibility.
No, but his signing it even after being told it didn't pass IS his fault.
But Bush did not personally take charge, overturn the constitution and try to push through his own legislation.
While this case may be questionable, bush did just that with the eavesdropping.
Oh, I forgot to mention: Bush is an idiot.
I'm supposed to say that every post, right? :)
Listen, if you don't like the fact that I fairly and equally called Democrats and Republicans morons and dumbasses... well, you're either going to live with it or not.
Craig, I find it very easy to live with your penchant for name-calling. No need to worry about me.
That wasn't my point, anyway. I was simply noting that you accused Bill Mulligan of acting like someone on a "playground," when in fact it was you who were acting in such a fashion, not Bill.
Craig, if you want to criticize other people for behavior that you, and not they, are engaging in, go right ahead. But like it or not, you're going to get called out for it when you do.
(Mulligan -- this should more than make up for my harrassing you in the "E for ENOUGH ALREADY" thread. So I start with a clean slate -- ready to dirty it up again as I always do!)
No one hates Iceland, do they?
Well, I don't see too many people streaming across the border into it, so nobody seems too FOND of the place. Then again. it may just be that the water is too cold.
Yeah, unless he gets the U.S. nuked first. I mean, who WOULDN'T want to nuke us at this point?
The people who buy our food and sell us crap. Nuke us and they will be hungry and surrounded by unsold crap.
Nate, if I'm understanding what you're saying, if a bad bill ("Kill the Irish") were to be improperly passed by congress, the president would have no options; he can't lagally veto it, he can't legally sign it, and if he does nothing it becomes law. Not agreat set of options and potentially a disasterous loophole, don't you think?
I'm pretty sure he could have vetoed it with no problem.
Bill Myers, thanks again. Did I give the Heimlich maneuver to you in a previous life? Anyway, I got your back too, mi amigo.
Craig, I didn't want to make it schoolyard taunt (Was it TIME or NEWSWEEK that put Kenneth Starr on the cover with the words PUT UP OR SHUT UP?). If Democrats in Congress really really believe that Bush has committed treason they have the obligation to begin impeachment efforts, regardless of the liklihood of success. The fact that they aren't makes me think that I might be correct that this isn't an impeachable offense.
If it happens, of course, I will be proven wrong.
Oh, I forgot to mention: Bush is an idiot.
I'm supposed to say that every post, right? :)
No reason to mention clear, self-evident truths ("The Earth revolved around the Sun"), so no.
:D
aren't demacrats the ones that have spent my whole life telling me that the Constitution is a living document. I guess thats only the case when your in charge
I have to agree with Bill Mulligan here. This isn't an impeachable offense. Cowardly and stupid, yes. But not impeachable. The NSA wiretap program, on the other hand, ordered in clear violation of the law, is. So PAD is right, it's time to impeach him.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2006 08:11 PM
No one hates Iceland, do they?
Well, I don't see too many people streaming across the border into it, so nobody seems too FOND of the place. Then again. it may just be that the water is too cold.
Oh, I hate Iceland. With a passion. You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
No, wait, that was the speech at the end of the first Planet of the Apes movie. I sometimes confuse things I see on T.V. with reality.
Anyway, that speech has nothing whatsoever to do with Iceland, does it?
Huh. So why do I hate Iceland, then?
Bill Myers, thanks again. Did I give the Heimlich maneuver to you in a previous life? Anyway, I got your back too, mi amigo.
I don't think I've had any previous lives. If I did, I wasn't paying attention to the lessons I was learning.
I just find it annoying when reasonable people are unfairly characterized as unreasonable.
The fact that they aren't makes me think that I might be correct that this isn't an impeachable offense.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution is quite vague as to what constitutes an impeachable offense. It lists "treason, bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It gives no guidance as to what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," though.
I believe that was deliberate. Remember, the framers of the constitution deliberately made impeachment a political, and not a legal, process.
That said, I agree with you that signing a bill into law that wasn't actually the one passed by the House should not be an impeachable offense. I believe, however, that if W. were to be investigated for as long and with as much thoroughness as was Bubba, we'd turn up something impeachable in connection with Iraq or the Valerie Plame mess.
Also, I think the impeachment proceedings against Bubba were a thinly veiled political attack. Yes, Bubba lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition in the Paula Jones case. But presiding Judge Susan Webber Wright decided that the Monica mess was not material to the Paula Jones case. And then Judge Wright dismissed the case.
And, y'know, Paula Jones was being supported by some right-wingnuts (and yeah, there are wingnuts on both sides, but Paula's wingnut pals happened to be Righties). She later said she felt used and abused by both sides. What did she expect? Like my grandpa used to say, you go to bed with bedbugs, you wake up loused.
That's not to say Bubba wasn't sleazy; he was. But not nearly as sleazy as his fanatical enemies painted him to be. In fact, I don't think Bubba was any sleazier than JFK. But JFK was president during a time when, perish the thought, we had a better understanding of the difference between public and private matters.
Ironically, the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, was arguably a victim of a political vendetta as well. Johnson publicly criticized Congress over a disagreement regarding how to handle the post-Civil-War Reconstruction. They got PO'd and impeached him for violating a law later ruled to be unconstitutional.
And yet a president we most certainly had reason to impeach -- Richard M. Nixon -- resigned before it could happen because at some point he realized he'd go down in flames if he fought the impeachment.
As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."
> The SCOTUS even cites some precedent that looked at similar issues, including some language the pretty much says that it's better to move forward even in the face of such errors than to open up the entire process and send it back to square 1.
Supreme Court of Canada said pretty much the same thing when Lyin' Brian (ex- Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney) ran afoul of the Constitution in ramming his hated Federal sales tax through. Before it had even been signed into law, the Supreme Court was presented with a challenge. Of course, it took so long to consider the matter that the tax Bill was passed in the meantime and they opted to allow it to stand as a fait accomplis.
> And from Wikipedia:
Have you read the interesting riposte from Britannica concerning NATURE's study claiming that Wikipidia and Britannica were about equivalent in terms of reliability of information?
In a nutshell: don't go to the former for serious information.
Eitherway, the President's can only act in a manner presumptuous that the bill has been properly passed.
If that is the case, and I'm still not convinced that it's that simple, the right thing to do would have beent to veto it since it wasn't passed properly.
aren't demacrats the ones that have spent my whole life telling me that the Constitution is a living document. I guess thats only the case when your in charge
The Constitution is a living document because it can be amended. This is done according to Article 5 of the Constitution. This has nothing to do with bush's actions, as he is ignoring the limits on government as put forth in the Constitution & it's amendments.
=====================
On a related note, Article 3 section 3 defines treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
That said, I agree with you that signing a bill into law that wasn't actually the one passed by the House should not be an impeachable offense.
The question remains, however, why the Bush Administration is now defending what is clearly a breach of our Constitution.
But it strikes me as completely typical that they'd try and use a 105 year old precedent to support their position.
Compared to the fact that the other 99.99999999999999999999999 times, we just follow the Constitution and move on.
It gives no guidance as to what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," though.
I always found that an interesting phrase--isn't a misdemeanor by difinition a monor crime? So what exactly is a "high misdemeanor?" (I mean, could the president get impeached for a regular misdemeanor? A driving violation?)
I believe, however, that if W. were to be investigated for as long and with as much thoroughness as was Bubba, we'd turn up something impeachable in connection with Iraq or the Valerie Plame mess.
The Plame kerfuffal seems to be petering out with no evidence that Cheney, Bush, etc did the actual outing. Richard Armitage at the State Department seems the most likely candidate at this point. Iraq, well, we could argue that all night but I've seen no smoking gun to show that Bush figured out early in his presidency that everyone was wrong about the WMD and went in anyway, which is what they'd have to prove. Just don't see it happening. The NSA wiretapping is the best bet but there seems little disire among Democrats to use taht one as of yet.
Here's the only scenario I could see. If the Democrats won both the house and Senate--not as impossible as some make it out to be (even if they got 50/50 they might induce Chafee to switch teams) and Cheney has to resign for health reasons, they could hold up anyone that Bush nominates and just go whole hog to impeach and convict him by any means necessary. Then a Democrat would get the job.
Liklihood---around 1%, I think. As a point of reference, Avian Flu pandemic is at 25%, China invades Taiwan is at 12%, reinstating the draft is at 3%, and zombie plague is at 0.4% (and half of that is probably just wishful thinking on my part).
JosephW: Um, Bill, doesn't Dubya's blatant failure to do his duty to "uphold and defend the Constitution" as he "solemnly" swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury? True, the man didn't swear in a court of law, but he did take his oath in front of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Luigi Novi: Different oath. Perjury is lying while under the oath to tell the truth. Not failing to uphold the Constitution after taking the Oath of Office.
Michael Brunner: I've been saying this for some time. But some bush apologist always comes up with some half assed reason why it's not the same thing.
Luigi Novi: It’s not. They’re two different oaths.
However, I wonder if Bush couldn’t be impeached for other crimes, like his wire-tapping.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 12:06 AM
Here's the only scenario I could see. If the Democrats won both the house and Senate--not as impossible as some make it out to be (even if they got 50/50 they might induce Chafee to switch teams) and Cheney has to resign for health reasons, they could hold up anyone that Bush nominates and just go whole hog to impeach and convict him by any means necessary. Then a Democrat would get the job.
I wrote my last post quickly, and will cede the points about the probability that W. may have committed impeachable offenses in connection with Iraq or the Plame scandal. I loathe W. and his smug incompetence, and sometimes let my emotions get the better of me.
I am a Democrat and have voted for a Democrat for president in all but one of the election in which I was eligible to vote. The other time I voted for Nader (in 2000) and that was a protest vote. One could argue that voting for Nader was tantamount to voting for W. Trust me, it won't happen again.
That said, I would still very strongly consider voting for John McCain should he be the Republican presidential nominee for the next election. I just wish McCain didn't have to peddle himself to the Republican Party's ultra-conservative base to get the nomination, but I think that's a part of today's political reality. A presidential hopeful these days must first pander to the irrational base of their party, and then once the nomination is won, scramble back to more centrist positions.
If not done skillfully, you can end up like John Kerry, who opposed and supported the war in Iraq. I'm not saying McCain's going to be another Kerry, but he's flirting with the same problems; for example, he's now supporting capital gains tax cuts he earlier opposed.
I've decided that we should coin a new term for situations where one both supports and opposes the same thing. Let's say that they "supposed" it.
Oh, and a note to my fellow liberals who are outraged to find out that McCain is a conservative: you're kidding, right?
Then again, I expect to have my liberal credentials revoked at any time, as I've been embracing conservative ideas about smaller government while holding onto my liberal ideas about civil rights and acceptance of diversity. I don't think either side will have me these days. Oh, well.
Let's say that they "supposed" it.
Heh, as Glenn Reynolds would say.
Oh, and a note to my fellow liberals who are outraged to find out that McCain is a conservative: you're kidding, right?
Yeah, I predicted this would happen. McCain is a conservative. A pretty conservative conservative. I've been amazed at hearing self professed liberals talk about how much they like him and would vote for him when they have just pilloried the positions he has. I knew that eventually they would be shocked, shocked, to discover his "hidden" flaws.
McCain's main problem right now is age and health--too much of one, not enough of the other. He should be able to beat Hillary easily...but the health of a 70+ year old man is a slender thread upon which to hang one's hopes.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 07:36 AM
Let's say that they "supposed" it.
Heh, as Glenn Reynolds would say.
What? Dammit, I thought for once I'd thought up of something before someone else did. Damn you, Glenn Reynolds!
By the way, who is he?
Yeah, I predicted this would happen. McCain is a conservative. A pretty conservative conservative. I've been amazed at hearing self professed liberals talk about how much they like him and would vote for him when they have just pilloried the positions he has. I knew that eventually they would be shocked, shocked, to discover his "hidden" flaws.
In fairness, McCain is bringing some of it on himself by flip-flopping in hopes of winning over the Republican base. Granted, it's probably something he needs to do if he's to have a real chance of being the Republican nominee. Ironically, if McCain in the past had been a less principled politician -- i.e. less willing to break party ranks to take a principled stand -- I don't think we'd be hearing as much about his flip-flops.
Nevertheless, we both agree on one thing: McCain's always been conservative. That some people are just finding this out stuns me.
McCain's main problem right now is age and health--too much of one, not enough of the other. He should be able to beat Hillary easily...but the health of a 70+ year old man is a slender thread upon which to hang one's hopes.
Reagan was up there in age when he was president, and there's documentary evidence to support the idea that his mind was slipping even before he left office. If he picks a good veep, I'd be willing to take my chances. I mean, I'm still largely a liberal, but Hillary? I don't rabidly hate her like some do (my girlfriend and her family hate her with a passion I cannot understand), but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with her, either.
I'm sure as hell not voting for someone like Nader again! I learned my lesson!
Peter, ever consider putting your name on the Democratic ballot for 2008? :)
He'd have this independent's vote, but it probably won't help him take Oklahoma.
"But it strikes me as completely typical that they'd try and use a 105 year old precedent to support their position."
The age of the precedent has nothing to do with it. The significant differences between then and now do. The Field case decision came 2 years after the law had been ennacted. Declaring it void at that time would have resulted in a significant waste of Federal funds in the process to undo all the acts taken under the law. I think, anyway, the law involved looks like it has something to do with sugar. I didn't pay that much attention to that part.
More significantly, the error seemed inadverdant in Field.
In this case, we have at least 2 parties, and more likely 3, the President, and the Presidents of the Senate and the House, certifying that the Senate version of the bill was the version approved by Congress. It seems like a fact that this is not the case. Both the presidents of the House and the Senate have perjured themselves, or at the least committed fraud. The President was aware of this, and went along with it, making him an accomplice to the fraud. With three of them acting in concert, you have a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the public and the Federal government.
If that's not a felony or a high crime, nothing is (having had my treason argument shot down, I can at least still use my cliche phrase).
Presented with a bill that's been certified by both houses, the President does have to proceed on the presumption that it is a valid bill. However, when also presented with the fact that the House and the Senate did not approve the same version, the President has an obligation to veto the bill.
We are a society of rules and regulations. When the government entrusted to enforce and administer those rules and regulations starts violating them, we, the People, need to be very concerned. Error is one thing. Deliberate action is quite another. When I'm working on a project, and I discover an error that creates a substantial change in the outcome of my work, I go back and correct it. I don't press forward and turn in a bad product because I'm too lazy to go back and make the correction, hoping that no one catches my error. Or, at least, if I do, I'm prepared for the consequences if I'm found out.
Bill, Glenn Reynolds is the guy behind instapundit, one of the best blogs out there. "heh" is his one word code for anything that amuses him. You still get full residuals for "supposed".
Hilary does seem to bring out the dislike in a lot of people and not just conservatives. Unlike her husband, she has little charm, at least when giving speeches--real snoozefests, those.
But she's a bareknuckles fighter and has not had too much trouble getting her way. Anyone who thinks she has little chance at the nomination is fooling themselves.
The question remains, however, why the Bush Administration is now defending what is clearly a breach of our Constitution.
Because the alternative is admitting that they made a mistake and you know that's not going to happen. The only real question is what kind of medal will the clerk who made the typo receive.
I always found that an interesting phrase--isn't a misdemeanor by difinition a monor crime? So what exactly is a "high misdemeanor?" (I mean, could the president get impeached for a regular misdemeanor? A driving violation?)
Actually, a driving violation is even lower on the list of offenses than a misdemeanor, unless it involves something like vehicular manslaughter.
I think the FFs kept the language intentionally vague so as to leave it open to impeach a president for an offense that they didn't anticipate.
Too bad they didn't think to include gross incompetence.
The Plame kerfuffal seems to be petering out with no evidence that Cheney, Bush, etc did the actual outing. Richard Armitage at the State Department seems the most likely candidate at this point.
Probably. If the top people in this administration are good at anything, it's CYA.
Iraq, well, we could argue that all night but I've seen no smoking gun to show that Bush figured out early in his presidency that everyone was wrong about the WMD and went in anyway, which is what they'd have to prove.
The other thing that they could try to prove is that it was never about WMD at all and that WMD was just the marketing tool for the PNAC agenda. But I doubt they'll ever find a smoking gun for that either.
Just don't see it happening. The NSA wiretapping is the best bet but there seems little disire among Democrats to use taht one as of yet.
That's because the Democrats in Congress cringe in fear at any suggestion that they're "helping the terrorists."
As for McCain, I would consider voting for him as well, depending on his health and who ultimately runs against him, though I still have doubts that he'll actually get the nomination. I vote less on ideology than I do on who I think is the more capable manager. Few presidents actually end up governing according the ideology that they ran on. Ex: Bush's pledge not to engage in nation building; Clinton running on a promise of universal health and ending his administration with a declaration that "era of big government was over,"; Bush reviving the era of big government with a brand new bloated and inefficient bureacracy; Nixon running on a platform of law and order (heh).
"Yeah, I predicted this would happen. McCain is a conservative. A pretty conservative conservative. I've been amazed at hearing self professed liberals talk about how much they like him and would vote for him when they have just pilloried the positions he has. I knew that eventually they would be shocked, shocked, to discover his "hidden" flaws."
Don't know what was hidden about it. The man has pointed out again and again that his voting record was deeply conservative for years. He's had to to defend himself from all the "conservatives" who kept calling him a RINO and attacking him at every chance because he was true to his values as a conservative rather then whoring himself out to party crusades.
But she's a bareknuckles fighter and has not had too much trouble getting her way. Anyone who thinks she has little chance at the nomination is fooling themselves.
Hillary has one additional thing: Despite the intense hatred she inspires on the right, she has proven to be capable of reaching across the aisle working with the likes of Santorum and Frist when necessary. McCain has a similar ability as well.
She may have a half-decent chance to win the nomination, unless the Democrats wake up to the fact that giving it to would be ritual suicide.
Don't know what was hidden about it. The man has pointed out again and again that his voting record was deeply conservative for years. He's had to to defend himself from all the "conservatives" who kept calling him a RINO and attacking him at every chance because he was true to his values as a conservative rather then whoring himself out to party crusades.
His RINO image among party faithful is going to be the biggest hurdle he's going to have to overcome if he wants the nomination in 2008. The image is not the result of his voting record, but of his willingness to buck the party leaders on issues that he considers to be important, such as campaign finance reform. Plus, he publicly treats his Democratic colleagues as intelligent human beings instead of something he scraped off of his shoe, and that's a clear violation of the GOP party handbook.
Jerry, I agree that McCain's conservatism is no secret, but people are acting like it's something new. Of course, the fact that paul Krugman is already feeling the need to try to knock him down a few notches is probably a good sign of his chances.
I vote less on ideology than I do on who I think is the more capable manager. Few presidents actually end up governing according the ideology that they ran on.
Well said.
She may have a half-decent chance to win the nomination, unless the Democrats wake up to the fact that giving it to would be ritual suicide.
What can they do? Has there ever been a candidate who has more money and the ability to raise it? Who has already locked up some of the best strategists this early? Who is so willing to do whatever it takes to win? Who has the media at her beck and call?
I'm not sure she can be stopped at this point. I don't see anyone with the ability to stop her.
As to whether or not she can win, much will depend on who the Republicans nominate. This is shaping up to be a fascinating election.
Am I the only one who thinks there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye? Almost everyone here seems so busy taking sides and hunkering down in a partisan trench, they haven't asked the simple question: Why is it that it took a lawsuit by Public Citizen, a liberal legislative watchdog group, to bring this story to light?
Where was the outcry from the Democrats in the Senate or the House? It’s not like there’s a shortage there of people there just champing at the bit to go after the White House. Why didn’t Russ Feingold take up THIS apparently slam dunk cause to make noise against Bush, instead of going after him over a much more legally ambiguous wiretapping issue?
Why indeed?
Could it be some members of Congress might be embarrassed they didn’t carefully read what they actually voted on? Or could it be that members of Congress thought, if they even noticed the discrepancy, “Oh, what the heck, it’s only a typo?”
In any case, a call for impeachment is way over the top, unless one plans to impeach all the folks in Washington who were asleep at the switch on this one. After all, this particular “ugly baby” was walking and talking by the time Congress left it on the White House’s doorstep to sort out.
Should the White House have taken the high road here? Well, I know if I was in charge, my first gut response would have been to send the bill back for a third vote. But then again, we have no idea what advice the “experts” in Congress (Republican or Democrat) gave the White House regarding this particular train wreck, now do we?
I'll be curious to see what the back story on this whole mess is when it eventually comes out.
What can they do?
Well, the obvious thing is to not vote for her in the primary, but you're right. It's going to take a candidate with a lot of charisma and the ability to raise huge gobs of cash to block her. I still think they're best bet for winning is looking outside the beltway for a governor or someone like Wesley Clark who has never held elected office.
>Has there ever been a candidate who has more money and the ability to raise it? Who has already locked up some of the best strategists this early? Who is so willing to do whatever it takes to win? Who has the media at her beck and call?
Funny you should write this.
Sounds an awful lot like Paul "I wanna be Prime Minister, I wanna be Prime Minister, I wanna be Prime Minster" Martin Jr. Many people thought he was one of the best Finance Ministers this country ever had (I had my doubts, but that's another matter). He ran for politics with ONE goal in mind: to become Prime Minister. Everything he did was aimed at this. He had piles of cash (a wealthy businessman), connections, political savvy, practically considered The Second Coming by many. Then, he got tired of waiting for the existing party leader to step down, engineered a coup within the Liberal party, took over as Prime Minister and ...
... promptly did a crash-and-burn of spectacular proportions as people discovered the hard way that, for all his skills, charisma, money, and other attributes, he was USELESS as the head of the nation. So much so, that he got to be called Mr. Dithers by the media, and eventually resigned from politics after his minority government went down to defeat.
People pinning their hopes on Billary should take note, and take care.
Unless Wesley Clark has vastly improved his game she'll eat him alive.
I won't be surprised to see most of her opponents actually run for the VP post. That will require them to not be too harsh on her, which will make it easier for her to win. Of course, anyone who goes after her hard risks losing her not inconsiderable base. Hillary is young enough to have the opportunity to run, lose the nomination and sit back and watch the guy who beat her go down in flames, a situation she can help ensure by spending her efforts and money on suppporting legislative candidates in 2008.
You're correct that a charismatic governor would be the best bet. Judging from the hack job the NYT did on Warner, it won't be easy (Did anyone see the picture of Warner they used? Possibly the worst photo ever taken of a politician and I'm including Mussolini upside down and full of bullet holes.)
Russ--I wonder if part of the reason for the lack of congressional attention is because this happens a lot more than we know. Given the size of some of the laws passed I would not be surprised if misplaced commas and decimal points are an everyday occurance, with results in the billions of dollars. Doesn't excuse it but it might explain the situation.
Unless Wesley Clark has vastly improved his game she'll eat him alive.
Clark was just an example. There might be another retired general or businessman willing to run under the Democratic banner who could do the job.
As for Clark himself, well, he was a novice in 2004 and if he finds better media advisers, he could improve his Q-rating. Hell, it worked for Nixon in '68 and if he could pull it off, there's no reason Clark could, too.
You're right, Hillary is still young enough that if she fails to get the nomination in '08, she can try again in '12 or even '16. But, if she wins the nomination in '08, she'd better take it all the way to the White House. Democrats have a long history of sending failed nominees to the cornfield if they lose.
The other thing that they could try to prove is that it was never about WMD at all and that WMD was just the marketing tool for the PNAC agenda. But I doubt they'll ever find a smoking gun for that either.
Wolfowitz stated in a speech that "WMD's were used because it was something everyone agreed on"
much more legally ambiguous wiretapping issue
Legally ambiguous? The 4th Amendment says a warrant is needed, bush said that doesn't apply to him. Seems plenty clear to me.
Should the White House have taken the high road here?
Yeah, wouldn't that be part of bringing "honor & dignity back to the White House"?
A good friend of mine whose intelligence and political savvy commented on this, and while his explanation sounds reasonable, something is still bugging me.
Point one, he said that the bill doesn't actually "Screw" anyone, it supposedly cuts out the redundancies; Allegedly, there are supposed to be other programs to pick up the slack of what's been cut. Of course, I prefer to see results, not promises, and we've all had experiences at how well the "Back up" plans have been working for health care.
Second, he said that this is essentially the same as a company CEO "trimming the dead wood" in the budget, and as such it doesn't need to be a bill that has to be voted on, he can just sign away on it. Anyone else want to weigh in on this point? Because if that's true... It bugs the hell out of me a LOT more if McSmirkypants can simply cut things out of the budget without a vote, simply by declaring it "Redundant" or "Dead wood".
Now a REAl president, a REAL leader, a REAL chief executive says, "I'm sorry, no, this bill was not passed properly. It shouldn't be on my desk. I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution, this violates the constitution, therefore I cannot be a party to it. I'm vetoing it; either overturn the veto if you can, or else bring it back to me done right this time."
I don't understand all the "He had to sign it because the leadership of both houses certified it to him." or the "I can't be a party to it, I'm vetoing it." positions. I don't see how, if behaving correctly, he could do either. Why he should take any action on it at all.
In my view, since he knows it is not a valid law in that the versions passed by the two houses didn't agree, he should do nothing with it. It's just a piece of paper with writing on it, but certainly not a law that requires either signing or vetoing.
Picture someone giving him a stack of laws to sign or veto and in the midst of the stack he finds a random memo. "Oops, how did that one get in there? Well, just set it aside since it isn't something I have to take any action on."
Sean, once both house leaders certify the bill, he has to do something. Doing nothing makes it a law after 10 days if Congress is still in session. One of the reasons we have checks and balances is so crap like this doesn't happen. In this case, there have to be three elected bodies taking action to make a law...the House, the Senate, and the President. Having the bill certified by both houses is one way of making sure that the bill that gets passed to the President is actually the bill that was approved by each house. And giving the President veto power is the only way to counter a conspiracy by the joint leaders of the house to get legislation passed that was not in fact agreed to by both houses. Except in this case, all three of them acted in concert, or at least the leader of the House and the President have. It's a failure of our system, because a single political interest control all three branches of government. Our system is designed to prevent this kind of system, yet the GOP has managed to scare their way into dominating 2 branches, and gaining a significant foothold in the third branch.
Interestingly enough, until Andrew Jackson became president, the prevailing wisdom was that the president should only veto a bill if he believed it violated the Constitution. Jackson was the first to use the veto to kill a bill that he didn't like.
Funny how today, people are arguing that shouldn't veto a bill that clearly didn't meet the requirements of the Constitution.
Clark was just an example. There might be another retired general or businessman willing to run under the Democratic banner who could do the job.
I agree, though finding that person may be tough. Usually I don't like it when someone makes their first political try that of the presidency. I'd like to see how they actually handle politics in some lesser role first. Bill Frist is a smart man--there are few unintelligent doctors--but he has not set the world on fire as a Senator.
A businessman or woman running as a Democrat would be very interesting but I don't think they could survive the primary. I doubt that even Ben or Jerry coul satisfy the far left fringe who look at capitalism as the root of all evil and it's almost impossible to avoid charges of conflict of interest, etc.
I think the reason smart businessmen have avoided running for either party is that they are, as mentioned, smart. Too bad.
As for Clark himself, well, he was a novice in 2004 and if he finds better media advisers, he could improve his Q-rating. Hell, it worked for Nixon in '68 and if he could pull it off, there's no reason Clark could, too.
I see Clark as a very viable choice for VP. He will help Hillary attack the perception that women are soft on defence (ridiculous I know; Hillary is a hawk almost to the right of Lieberman). But that will require that he not run too hard against her.
You're right, Hillary is still young enough that if she fails to get the nomination in '08, she can try again in '12 or even '16. But, if she wins the nomination in '08, she'd better take it all the way to the White House. Democrats have a long history of sending failed nominees to the cornfield if they lose.
Oh yeah. True. Anyone even seen Mike Dukakis lately? He was Kerry's boss once, did he make a single appearance in 2004?
The one possible exception--Gore. Hear me out; he lost but in the minds of many Democrats he really didn't. He's spent 8 long years now losing his mind...er, I mean, moving further and further to the left. He would be far more liberal than Hillary. He also, all kidding aside, has greatly improved his delivery, sounding far less like the robotic Al of old. The novelty of seeing Al Gore actually sounding passionate may lifet some hearts. He can also raise lots of money. And he has no, that's zero, interest in the vice presidential position. It's all or nothing.
The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.
And, of course, by not signing the bill at all, it still counts as a veto. It's called a "pocket veto".
In any case, a call for impeachment is way over the top, unless one plans to impeach all the folks in Washington who were asleep at the switch on this one.
Sounds good to me.
There was an article on Yahoo this morning about Nebraska, and the fact that they are the only state to have only one house for Legislature, instead of two.
And the fact that the recently inacted term limits is causing a huge turnover.
Of course, many, including the politicians themselves and their lobbyists, see this as a bad thing. But then, lobbyists don't want to find new people to suck up to.
I'm wondering if term limits for the US House and Senate might not be a bad idea. Because if there's one thing our federal government seems to be lacking in right now, it's fresh blood.
I doubt that even Ben or Jerry coul satisfy the far left fringe who look at capitalism as the root of all evil and it's almost impossible to avoid charges of conflict of interest, etc.
That would depend on how much influence the far left fringe would have once the goals of the party shift from slamming Bush to actually naming a candidate. If the Democratic Leadership Council decides step up the way they did for Clinton in 92, I can see them picking up a moderate businessman. If I were in charge, I'd go that route just to see the collective stroke that would ripple through the GOP. Especially if they decide to pick another failed businessman turned politician. Hell, I'd vote for repealling the 22nd amendment just to see a debate between Bill Gates and the chimp-in-chief.
The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.
Now that would be entertaining. Especially if he won and she had to bite the bullet and become HIS VP.
Craig wrote: "I'm wondering if term limits for the US House and Senate might not be a bad idea. Because if there's one thing our federal government seems to be lacking in right now, it's fresh blood."
Yeah, I agree. The rationale for limiting a president to two terms is no different than it would be for limiting Senators or members of the House to, say, four terms each.
Bill wrote: "The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever."
Hillary would mop up the floor with Gore, but I don't think she could win a presidential election. Despite the fact that the U.S. is primed for a woman president, Hillary has never led any organization of any size.
What would be wild, however, is if by some chance she is elected, she chose her husband as a cabinet appointee -- say, as chief of staff or secretary of state.
Hillary would mop up the floor with Gore, but I don't think she could win a presidential election.
It's hard to say.
For all the crap thrown at Gore, he still got more votes than Bush in 2000, and having Hillary as VP would probably be enough.
Plus, it would prime her even further for a run down the road.
But can Hillary win the presidency? I think she can, and, unlike Gore, I don't see her trying to keep Bill out of the spotlight in the process.
Gore tried to shy away from Clinton, and it probably cost him the presidency, because regardless, Clinton remains popular with people.
What would be wild, however, is if by some chance she is elected, she chose her husband as a cabinet appointee -- say, as chief of staff or secretary of state.
I'd say it's downright appropriate if she would.
Unlike Bush, Sr or what will likely happen with Jr, Bill Clinton hasn't gone to retire down on the ranch after leaving office.
Whether he would get a position under Hillary or not, he'd be doing something useful somewhere.
Once both house leaders certify the bill, he has to do something. Doing nothing makes it a law after 10 days if Congress is still in session.
See, Bobb, this is what I really just don't get. The leaders are lying and the Pres knows it. The bill presented to him is not what was passed by the House. For him to sign or veto or treat it as a legitimate item for him to act on seems to me to grant it a legitimacy it doesn't have.
Picture, if you will: The Speaker and Senate Majority Leader get together and agree on a law they would like passed. No vote is held at all. Just the two guys deciding they'd like it done. So they take this thing that has never gone before either chamber to the Pres, tell him it's certified and submit it for his signature.
The Pres knows it didn't go thru the right process and you're telling me he has to act on it anyway? Sounds like his signing it into law would just make him a co-conspiritor to violate the constitutional process. So wouldn't signing a veto to it be in a similar manner treating it like something it is not?
And if the leaders then say "He didn't sign or veto it so in 10 days it's law anyway." wouldn't the proper reaction be for everyone other than these two bozos to refuse to treat it as law?
I realize in the real world it would require the members of congress to actually oppose their leadership (Repubs) or grow a spine (Dems), but just because someone comes up and says "I certify the oval office is a square" doesn't mean you have to go along with it when it clearly isn't so.
I mean, c'mon. If Bush had said "That ain't a law, fellas. Send it back for another vote and get it right." do you really think anyone would have said "He didn't veto it so in 10 days it's law."?
Sign it or veto it were not his only choices. Treat it like what it is would be the correct thing to do.
"I mean, c'mon. If Bush had said "That ain't a law, fellas. Send it back for another vote and get it right." do you really think anyone would have said "He didn't veto it so in 10 days it's law."?"
My apologies for condensing your well-written reply to just those lines, Sean. But a lot of what you say is exactly correct. The Field case, and other SCOTUS opinions, spend a good deal of time talking about the respect each branch of government must have for the others. Remember that our three branches are created co-equal. The provide a system of checks and balances, each against the other, and have various interrelations that can get pretty twisted. But by providing three separate branches, the Founders created a redundant system that has multiple options to stop abuse and catch mistake.
In this case, it's pretty darn close to the scenario you describe. The Speaker and the Majority Leader got together and certified a bill that at least one of them (according to the stories going around, probably both of them) knew did not represent the bill passed by both houses. It was the bill that only the Senate had passed. They then presented this certification to the President. Which (again, according to the story) he also knew there was a problem, in that the House did not approve this version of the bill. But it's been certified. The respect due to the co-equal legislative branch of the government demands that the office of the President treat it as though it were a legitimate, certified bill. Knowing that it did not reflect the version passed by the House, he should have vetoed it. That's his job, as part of the system of checks and balances. When the leaders of Congress conspire to void the strictures of the Constitution, the President has an obligation to counter that action through the use of a veto. Even if he ignored it, it's been certified. After 10 days, a certified bill becomes law. The president needed to veto this in order to protect and uphold the Constitution. Any act short of a veto violates that duty.
Now, it's up the the SCOTUS to act, in it's capacity as a co-equal branch of government, to correct the situation. Which, if it fails to do so, will mean that all three branches of our government will have failed to act to protect and uphold the Constitution.
We can't vote out SCOTUS justices. We could impeach them. We can, however, vote out the leaders of Congress that did this. And we can send a big message to the GOP, that put forward all the candidates that took these actions, by awarding their seats to other parties.
Or we can decide that it's not such a big deal for our government to ignore 200+ years of Constitutional limits, and allow them to do whatever the hell they want. Just like Palestine can elect a terrorist party to manage the government, we can choose to allow a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, self-serving boobs to keep running the show. That's the beauty/horror of a democracy.
The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.
Now that would be entertaining. Especially if he won and she had to bite the bullet and become HIS VP.
Yeah, that would be great. Al would be sleeping with one eye open, that's for sure.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 12:06 AM
I always found that an interesting phrase--isn't a misdemeanor by difinition a monor crime? So what exactly is a "high misdemeanor?" (I mean, could the president get impeached for a regular misdemeanor? A driving violation?)
According to Elizabeth Holtzman "A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government."
She might just know what she's talking about since she has personal experience on the matter. "Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon."
Here's the URL to an interesting article regarding Bush and possible impeachment:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
Chris
I wish...
I have the feeling that the reason Bush isn't going to be impeached now is the same reason he wasn't impeached when he broke the law before, and it begins and ends with a man who, instead of shooting a lame quail that was predestined to die at his riflepoint, shot an old man in the face instead. I think that's the reason why, instead of a move to impeach him, there's a move to censure him, which most people don't even know what it is, or what it means. Censure is like a slap on the wrists; "Ya done bad, Georgie! Don't do that again!" Well it looks like he done it already!
My apologies for condensing your well-written reply to just those lines, Sean. But a lot of what you say is exactly correct.
No problem. I was actually thinking I was begining to rant (ya starts off with a few calm sentences and by the end ya find yerself "Oh, c'mon"-ing.), so thank you for the compliment.
The respect due to the co-equal legislative branch of the government demands that the office of the President treat it as though it were a legitimate, certified bill.
And that's the part where things start to go wildy amiss in my view. "as though it were"? Let's save the legitimate treatment for things that actually are legitimate.
By presenting the Pres with an illegitimate piece of legislation the Speaker and Leader demonstrated their lack of respect for the executive branch. I realize the "you dissed me so I'm going to dis you" approach can lead to all sorts of problems (Hello, Middle East) and one should stay on a higher road. But Speaker/Leader are in no position to demand that the Pres confer legitimacy onto their bill "as though it were". It isn't. Don't treat it like it is.
Thinking that the Pres has now been forced into a certain illegitimate path because someone else has made a false start, I don't buy it. That's saying the cheaters get to set the rules of the game. Sorry I jumped the starting gun, yeah I know it's against the rules, but I am a certified participant in this event so let's just continue the race with me starting up here, OK?
Knowing that it did not reflect the version passed by the House, he should have vetoed it.
Knowing that it did not reflect the version passed by the House, he should sent it back for another vote and refused to give it any legitimacy. That's moving the runner back to start.
Using a veto could accomplish it faster and more cleanly, perhaps. And I could actually go for that if it didn't lend some air of legitimacy to what they did. "See, he didn't dismiss it out of hand and make us go do it right. He vetoed it so at least he recognizes it was a piece of legislation he had to deal with." No. No more than if they'd certified a piece of swiss cheese.
My guess is that bush isn't going to be impeached for the same reason Andrew Johnson ultimately wasn't- too many people are against the alternative. Although I suppose in the latter's case Benjamin Wade (i think) had a lot more support than Cheney, which is probably why it went as far as it did.
I thought Johnson WAS impeached. He just wasn't convicted (same as Clinton).
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 09:59 PM
I thought Johnson WAS impeached. He just wasn't convicted (same as Clinton).
You are 100% correct. Don't take my word for it, though. Here's the straight poop from the White House's official Web site:
1
me am peter
me hate bush
blah blah blah
me hate bush so much
me tell you all the time
peter smash bush
the end?
"The end?"
Nope. Check the clock. 1,028 more days.
Man, and I thought waiting for Christmas to come was hard.
A significant point is possibly being glossed over:
If one and/or both Presidents of the House and/or Senate discovered and/or knew that the versions of the bill that were voted on separately were substaqntially different, yet passed that bill onto the President, then that is clearly a violation of their Constitutional and/or legal responsibilities.
Therefore it is incumbent on.....everyone?.....to determine who knew what and when they knew it. Once determined, this information should be used to discipline and/or remove the offenders in/from their office(s).
If the President knew of this situation and did nothing to correct it, then he is materially culpable, is in violation of his oath, and needs to suyffer the appropriate punishment.
That folks are arguing back and forth about this absolutely astonishes me!
This is not some "grey area" argument. It is plain, black and white, and deserves immediate action. Period!
Sorry about the typos. When I get extremely aggravated by something, I tend to type faster than I can reasonably control.....
Sean, I strongly suggest you read through the SCOTUS opionin in Field. I've cited it above. Because I think they are at least partially correct. Each of the three branches of goverment are co equal None sits higher, or lower, than the other. For the president to state, unilaterally, that a certified bill is not legitimate would place the executive above the legislature. It isn't. They sit at equal levels, and the standing procedures are that once both leaders of Congresss certify that a bill has been passed, the president must respect that action. To act in any other fashion would be to make the legislature subject to prsidential approval above and beyond the mere act of approving or vetoing a bill.
Likewise, for this reason, I think today's Court will rule just as the Field court did. When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed. To do anything else makes the other two branches of government subject to the overriding authority of the court.
Because the legislature and the executive have failed, collectively, to uphold the Constitution, the only recourse we really have, as voters, is to vote them out. I don't like saying that, but I don't see any other solution. We're not likely to get any action from our government.
SCOTUS can (and, I think, should) find that although the bill was "legitimately" passed and signed (as you pointed out, they may have no choice about that), the fact that the House version was never reconciled with the Senate makes it an unconcstitutional law, subject to being struck down by the court. Of course, first a challenge has to make it to SCOTUS...
"When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed."
Since when? One of the jobs that the SCOTUS has done for years is to rule on bills passed into law, once challenged and put before them, and determine if they do or do not violate the Constitution. They've done it for years now.
In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act "of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear." While that goes a long way back, the fact is that the repugnancy (violating the Constitution) is very clear here.
Want newer examples that range from state to fed levels?
The Texas Sodomy Law in 2003, Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition on an over reaching law meant to be a ban on "virtual child porn", Reno v. ACLU in the Communications Decency Act fight of 1997 and the 1998 striking down of the line item veto.
Lost a paragraph there. Not sure where it went since I know I typed it.
Last paragraph should have been:
Granted, those are all laws that were passed and then deemed to violate the Constitution after the fact. However, a strong case could be made by, to and for the SCOTUS that, regardless of the wording, nature or Constitutionality of the bill itself, the nature of this law's passing was in itself a violation of the Constitution and it is thus unconstitutional by its very creation process.
"MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House."
More at
Jerry, it's a tricky thing. The difference in prior SCOTUS acts declaring laws unconstitutional is that the terms of those laws exceeded the authority of the Constitution. They can be struck down because they exceed the authority granted to the government to regulate.
The difference here is that the procedure used to create the law is suspect, not the terms of the law itself. And the Court doesn't really have the authority to review the procedure used by Congress and the President to ennact a law. They only have the authority to look at the face of the law, and whether it complies with the Constitution.
There are 2 failures/violations here: one in Congress, with the certification that the bill represents the version passed by both Houses. Second is the approval of the President, despite his knowledge that the version he was signing was only approved by the Senate. But, once that's done, it's law. The leaders of Congress and the president have failed to uphold the Constitution. It's now up to Congress to take action to rectify this action.
Consider this analogy. The US has banned human cloning. If some scientist is found violating that ban, he'll be prosecuted. However, if some scientist manages to clone a human, we wouldn't destroy the clone. We might still punish the scientist, but not the product of his crime. In this case, regardless of how it came to be, this budget bill is now law. How it came to be law violates the proscriptions of the Constitution, but the best we can do is hold those responsible accountable (remove them from office through election or impeachment). But it will take additional legislation to address the new law.
I know it's tricky. I just still think that a case can be made that the SCOTUS could strike the law down based on how it was birthed. It didn't go through the propper channels/process to get where it got.
The clone example doesn't really work because you're talking about a life vs a sheet of paper with some fancy words on it. A life has rights of its own while this impropperly passed law does not. It should be challenged and struck down at the first chance.
The SCOTUS has had chances to strike down such laws that were not passed in strictly the correct manner. It's declined to, although I don't think there's ever been a case where the act was knowing and blatant as this.
I know there's issues with the clone example, since we're talking about a human being. But it's appropriate because the law, once it's created, does exist in it's own right. In the cloning example the process is regulated, not the product. You punish the offenders, not the creation. And once something is created, you can't pretend it doesn't exist just because the process used to create it was not the proper process. It's still created. You can't just will it away, or ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist anymore.
The proper time to stop this action from going forward first rested with the leader of the House. Failing that, it fell to the president to veto the bill as improper. He failed to do that. The Court can't find this law unconstitutional without investigating and ruling on the procedure used to make this law, which is something I've never heard the court to do.
Bobb: the standing procedures are that once both leaders of Congresss certify that a bill has been passed, the president must respect that action. To act in any other fashion would be to make the legislature subject to prsidential approval above and beyond the mere act of approving or vetoing a bill.
... When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed. To do anything else makes the other two branches of government subject to the overriding authority of the court.
See, Bobb, you can't have a system of checks and balances if one branch isn't able to counter in some way the actions of both of the others. And what you've just said is that the leaders of the legislative and executive branches can run roughshod over the judicial. (Yeah, I know it is happening, but they aren't supposed to be able to and we're talking about what should happen here.)
According to your description, the two leaders present a bill to the President and certify that it has been passed. He has no choice but to accept that it's legitimate. And if he signs it, the court has no choice but to accept that it is legitimate law.
EVERYbody knows the bill was never presented to Congress. EVERYbody knows it didn't go thru the proper constitutional process for making a law. Yet, according to your description, the court can't do anything about it.
Back to where this started: I simply just don't agree that one branch of government has to accept as legitimate something presented to it by another branch when they know it just ain't so. When one branch folow the rules the other branches should not be forced to go along with it; they should say "You didn't follow the rules now go back and do it right." Without disrespecting the seperate powers or branches or further violating an established process, the Pres could just say no.
Seriously, picture the two leaders presenting him with a "certified" piece of swiss cheese and can you really argue that the Pres would have to sign or veto it? "Dennis, it's cheese." "No, Mr. President. It's a law." "Seriously, Denny. I can see the holes in it. Look, {chomp} it's edible." "We've certified it, sir. So it must be a law." It's the kind of thing I easily see John Cleese and Michael Palin acting out.
Missing tag in prior posting. First two paragraphs should have been in italics:
Bobb: the standing procedures are that once both leaders of Congresss certify that a bill has been passed, the president must respect that action. To act in any other fashion would be to make the legislature subject to prsidential approval above and beyond the mere act of approving or vetoing a bill.
... When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed. To do anything else makes the other two branches of government subject to the overriding authority of the court.
"...you can't pretend it doesn't exist just because the process used to create it was not the proper process."
Look at that statement again. Roll it around in your mind for a moment. Check out those last six words. That should be the whole argument right there.
"...it was not the proper process."
I want to put up a shed in my back yard. I get told that the county has to issue permits. I don't go to the county and get the permits that I need and do it anyway. The county can fine the daylights out of me and have my shed pulled down at my cost if it so chooses. Why? It was not the proper process.
Elections have been overturned in this country because, while the will of the people may have been carried out, the election itself did not follow the proper process.
My boss can't just call me in and fire me for no other reason then just because he doesn't like me anymore then he can just promote me to Deputy Chief because he likes me without following the established rules and regulations of our department. Either of those actions would be struck down/reversed by the simple fact that, all together now, "it was not the proper process."
I can go out and arrest a psycho killer that everybody knows needs to be locked up and see him walk out of court if what I did on the street was not the proper process.
Local, state and federal systems have for years undone things left and right because the thing done was not done in the proper manner. This is no different. The SCOTUS should step up and do its damn job since Bush can't seem to do his.
It looks like this discussion boils down to whether Bush should have vetoed the bill or sent it back to Congress with a Post-It attached saying, "You didn't follow proper procedure, fix it."
But don't both options essentially mean the same thing? The only significant difference is that if Bush had "officially" vetoed the bill, Congress would have had to pass it on a supermajority or restarted the bill process from scratch. Neither option seems to have been politically acceptable to the leaders of Congress, so I guess they decided to slip it in and hope no one noticed.
To bad. They did.
Sean, the checks and balances are on the excercise of power. The president needs to approve bills from congress: they can't pass along a piece of cheese as a bill, because if they did, any sane president would veto it. But as ridiculous as the example is, that's exactly what would happen. If congress certified that a block of cheese was a tax bill, and presented it to the president, he'd have to treat it like it was a certified bill. He can't second guess congress, because he's a co-equal branch of government. He doesn't get to say anything about what they DO. He just has a say over the product of what congress does.
Do a google search on stupid laws sometime. You'll see things like not chewing gum on Sunday, not walking a moose through the park after midnight, not eating ice cream with a spoon. (not real examples, I made them up based on things I've seen in the past). Compared to some of the things, a block of cheese for a tax bill sounds darn right reasonable. But despite the nature of the bills, they all were passed. The executive in each case couldn't just say "this is a silly bill, I'm not going to view it as real." Because he doesn't have that authority. It sounds crazy, but that's the way things work.
Jerry, I'll use your shed without permits example. What's the city's solution? Fine you, and force you to take down the shed. But the shed is still there. It just doesn't wink out of existence simply because you didn't have the permits to erect it. It's still there, until someone does something to remove it.
With this bill/law, it's exactly as though the president and Cogress built a shed without getting the proper permits. The shed's been built, and the Court simply doesn't have the jurisdiction to order Congress to go back and fix the problem. All the Court can do is look to see that the law, however it was ennacted, complies with the Constitution on it's face.
Bobb, most of what are labeled as stupid laws are usually just outdated statutes that probably sounded perfectly reasonable when they were passed (real example: requiring someone to set off a firecracker or other noisemaker as a warning before crossing an intersection in a "horseless carriage"), but don't make any sense in a modern context. But, because these laws are often buried in obscure legal texts and almost never cited, they're forgotten and the legislative bodies simply never got around to repealing.
It's not the same as handing the president a hunk of cheese and saying it's a bill. The archaic laws were bills that were passed (presumably) in accordance to the established procedures and signed into law. That they now seem stupid is the result of changing times, not that the people who originally drafted them thought that they were stupid at the time and tried to pull a fast one.
>I want to put up a shed in my back yard. I get told that the county has to issue permits.
Reminds one of the sad-but-true FRANK & ERNEST gag of some years back where a bewildered-looking Frank staggers out of a municipal licensing bureau, trailing dropped forms and papers behind him as he goes. He confides to Ernie: "My great-great-grandfather helped build a nation, but I need 27 forms and permits to add a porch to my house."
At what point did things take such a turn for the worse, exactly?
"But, because these laws are often buried in obscure legal texts and almost never cited, they're forgotten and the legislative bodies simply never got around to repealing."
If I were in charge, I'd make sure the bureaucrats set time aside each year to go through the statutes, and get rid of the ones which are no longer needed. It'd take a while, but it would be a most worthwhile exercise. Maybe, in the course of so doing, it might make them think about crafting better laws in the future? OK, not going to happen. One can dream, though, right?
Bobb: The executive in each case couldn't just say "this is a silly bill, I'm not going to view it as real." Because he doesn't have that authority.
The silliness of the bill isn't the issue, Bobb. I'd agree that the Pres couldn't just say that about even the silliest bill ever crafted if it had been passed by both houses of Congress.
To say the Pres's only options are sign or veto when presented with something just because the leaders of Congress lie and say it has been thru both houses is to say that he'd have to veto a hunk of swiss cheese.
He has the option of saying (and I argue that the correct course of action would be for him to say) "This is not a law. Take it back and do it right." Note: He wouldn't be saying it's a silly law, or a law he doesn't like or anything of that nature. He would be saying that the constitutional process required was not followed and he is not obligated to act as if it was.
Bobb, the idea you're pitching just doesn't work. You're claiming that the rules that the Constitution set up to run our country can just be sidestepped by three dunces whenever they want to pull a fast one.
The bill was signed into law without being greenlighted by both the House and the Senate. You can not do this. It is against the Constitution. If you don't follow the rules as laid out by the Constitution when passing a bill into law then then the process has been subverted and the law, even if it is in itself Constitutional by its scope and wording, is unconstitutional by the process of its creation as a law.
"What's the city's solution? Fine you, and force you to take down the shed. But the shed is still there. It just doesn't wink out of existence simply because you didn't have the permits to erect it. It's still there, until someone does something to remove it."
Yes, like sending me to jail for breaking the law and hiring a team, that I would end up paying for, to rip it down. Yes, I have seen cases go that far. And the SCOTUS should step in just the same and rip down Bush's "law" as well as giving him and his two partners in this crime one hell of a smack upside the face.
It was not passed legally into law as laid out by the Constitution. It can not and should not stand. To let it stand is just begging Bush (or some other future Prez and his pals) to pull another fast one down the road. Maybe they'll even pull a fast one with a "law" that will destroy some right, freedom or process of law you hold dear. Maybe then you'll get it.
Sean and Jerry are working the same argument, but Jerry...
"Maybe they'll even pull a fast one with a "law" that will destroy some right, freedom or process of law you hold dear. Maybe then you'll get it."
This is uncalled for. If you've paid any attention to my posts on this subject, and on other posts of mine on government action, you'd see that I'm a staunch defender of rights, and of the rule of law. This has nothing to do with me defending an action simply because I don't think it affects me. I've said numerous times that I don't like the outcome I'm predicting. But, based on my experience as a lawyer, and my interpretation of SCOTUS precedent, this is the outcome I see.
Both you and Sean want the Court to strike down this law. I ask you, on what basis does the SCOTUS have to investigate the inner workings of Congress, to make sure that the certifications of its leaders is accurate. What is your legal precedent? Show me in the Consitution where it says that the SCOTUS can subpoena the records of congress, tally the votes, compare the versions of the Senate bill to the House bill, and render some decision on it. Show me that.
You can't. Because such language and precedent does not exist. The Court does not have the authority to examine the inner workings of either other branch of the government. Just as the Executive cannot question the workings of Congress or the Court. If the Court declares a law unconstitutional, the President cannot look at the opinion, decide that the court just drew straws to determine the outcome, and declare the ruling null and void. He doesn't have that power.
So, yes, just because three bafoons act in a way that's not allowed by the Constitution, because those baffoons just happen to be the leaders of Congress, and the president, they can pass a law that has cleary violated the procedure set out in the Constitution. Why? Becuase that's the power we grant them.
If I'm wrong, prove it with precedent. Case law. Show me where the SCOTUS has overturned an act of Congress, signed by the president (or otherwise become law) on the grounds that it was not properly passed. We're not talking about state law, or local ordinances, which might operate under different systems than the Constitution. We're talking about a Federal law.
It may not have been passed legally under the Constitution, but only the Congress now has the power to correct it.
Bobb,
A cop and a lawyer arguing!!!!!! Let the sarcasm begin!!!!!
:D
“Show me in the Constitution where it says that the SCOTUS can subpoena the records of congress, tally the votes, compare the versions of the Senate bill to the House bill, and render some decision on it. Show me that.”
“The Court does not have the authority to examine the inner workings of either other branch of the government.”
Don’t have to and I never said that it had that power. I said in prior posts that this law needs to be challenged at the earliest opportunity. I just haven’t focused on the challenge part of the issue for a bit because I was responding to your idea that the law is Constitutional despite the nature of its birthing.
The SCOTUS can’t and doesn’t need to turn in to CSI: DC. The challenge and the challenger are what would bring all those things before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS then need only hear the arguments and rule on the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of the law based on the process of its creation.
“If I'm wrong, prove it with precedent. Case law. Show me where the SCOTUS has overturned an act of Congress, signed by the president (or otherwise become law) on the grounds that it was not properly passed.”
I can’t. But that’s kinda a weak argument when dealing with the SCOTUS. They have, in the long history of the court, ruled on lots of things for the first time and made a numbers of rulings that were firsts. A precedent’s gotta start somewhere.
My argument, my full argument, has been that this should be challenged at the first opportunity, taken before the SCOTUS and that the SCOTUS should rule that the law is in violation of the Constitutional because, despite the Constitutionality of its own wording, it did not follow the process of passage from a bill to a law as prescribed by the laws of the land. To not have someone with the means challenge it and to not have the SCOTUS strike it down is to set a dangerous precedent in itself.
“This is uncalled for.”
Yeah, maybe it was. I should have framed it as a “what if” where it was a law that had a larger impact and more people noticed it rather then taking a swipe.
Theoretical argument to follow. This law goes unchallenged and we roll into the November 06 elections. The Democrats fail to take the House but leave the Republicans only a one member majority. Take into account your Independent members and your moderate Republicans and Bush would never get half of what he wants passed in the house.
The Senate becomes another story. The Republicans pick up a huge majority number after the 06 elections. Many of the newly elected are hardcore Bush backers as well. They’ll give him anything he wants.
Bush goes after Social Security again with plans of sweeping changes in the system. The House gives him a passed reform bill that only gives him around 10% of what he wants. The Senate passes a bill that gives him everything he wants. The House and Senate majority leaders accidentally/on purpose slip him the Senate bill to sign as a certified, passed both bodies bill. Bush signs it because he knows that he can get away with it.
Is it law or can it be struck down? It’s not that different then what happened here. Both have them sidestepping the required processes of signing a bill into a law. Both have two bills that, for slightly different reasons, are different then the unsigned one. Both are claimed to be “accidents” by the parties involved. My example just has them being more blatant about it then the nudge and wink that they did here. The way you’re talking, we would be stuck with it. I don’t think we should be stuck with either situation.
Bobb: Both you and Sean want the Court to strike down this law.
Actually, not really. My main point has always been that I don't think "sign or veto" are the only choices the Pres has, that he could have sent it back and that would have been the right course to take.
Since he didn’t do that I wouldn't mind seeing someone stand up for what is right, seeing the one remaining branch of government set things right. But what I want is for the Pres is to not agree to go along with a constitutional violation.
I'm not trained as a lawyer. (I don't even play one on TV.) So I don't know the finer points of the limits to each branch's ability to check and balance the other two. And, at the risk of appearing to wimp out of the discussion, I'm not inclined to spend the effort to research the precedent and case law. But if two branches can collude to overthrow the constitution and there is nothing the third branch can do to stop them, then we don’t have the checks and balances we should.
If the Pres has to act as if something certified by the two leaders is actually what they claim it is, has to take what they say as truth even when he knows it is not just because of “the respect each branch of government must have for the others”, it flies in the face of what common sense and an inherent sense of right and wrong says is right.
Bobb: but only the Congress now has the power to correct it
Congress has to fix this? How can we rely on Congress to be able to fix this? Not in the “those guys never do anything right, you can’t rely on them for anything” sense. But in a “let’s appeal the judge’s ruling back to himself and ask him to reconsider” sense.
If the Speaker, on his own, can “certify” something that has not actually passed the House couldn’t he do the opposite as well? What if Congress passes a bill that would set everything right and Speaker refuses to certify it? He’s lied about their will once already. And if he lies again in the opposite direction, well, apparently everyone has to take what he says as truth. Y’know, out of respect for his branch of the government, and neither of the other branches can touch him.
Anyway, far more discussion that I’d intended to get involved in and I appreciate the respectful manner in which it’s been conducted by all participants. As a long-time lurker here, it’s been kinda fun to actually join in. I’ll have to do it again sometime.
- Sean
Jerry, I agree that this act should be/should have been challenged at the earliest opportunity: By the leader of the House, then by the president. They both failed, because they knew that there was a decent chance that no one would notice. And if they did, by the time they could do anything about it, the bill would have become law already.
The SCOTUS does have precedent in this area, and it's passed on the opportunity to play CSI: Congress. Granted, the language used by the Court in those cases suggests that those cases involved true error, but the language used suggests a strong unwillingness on behalf of the Court to look into the workings of Congress.
And if it happens again? I'd imagine that if no one in Congress is willing to take the people responsible to task, we'll be stuck with more laws that violate the Constitution.
"If the Speaker, on his own, can “certify” something that has not actually passed the House couldn’t he do the opposite as well? What if Congress passes a bill that would set everything right and Speaker refuses to certify it? He’s lied about their will once already. And if he lies again in the opposite direction, well, apparently everyone has to take what he says as truth. Y’know, out of respect for his branch of the government, and neither of the other branches can touch him."
Then Congress would have to initiate procedures to have the Speaker removed.
The problem is that the American people have handed the government to a single party. We're seeing first hand why this is a bad thing. Checks and balances only work if the people given that power excercise it. I doubt the framers ever thought that collusion between the Congress and the president to subvert the requirements of the Constitution was ever something that would happen.
Maybe they'll even pull a fast one with a "law" that will destroy some right, freedom or process of law you hold dear. Maybe then you'll get it.
Yeah, he gets away with this and before you know it, he'll ignore a law that was designed to provide minimal oversight to protect the privacy of US citizens while still giving the federal government broad latitude to conduct surveillance simply because he found the paperwork inconvenient.
Oh wait . . .
Peter said "What the hell kind of country is this where a blow job is an impeachable offense, but a screw job isn't?"
He wasn't facing impeachment because of a blow job. He was facing it because he lied to a Federal Grand jury and he was called on it. Only a democrat would think telling a lie to a Federal Grand Jury no matter what the question was is OK.
"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."
Novafan, that's BS. He lied about his relationship with an intern. Bush has wholesale violated provisions of the Constitution, mislead Congress and the public about the need to go to war with a sovereign nation, and essentially declared himself above all reproach, law, and consequences. It's not even a close comparison. If Bush had a Democratic controlled Congress, he'd never have made it to a second term.
As someone who has posted as Bobb here before I must stand up for what Novafan posted. "Fans" of Clinton like to cloak the impeachment as over a oral sex. It was really about a C-I-C who thought he was above the law. The same things Bush 'hater" claim of him now.
"He wasn't facing impeachment because of a blow job. He was facing it because he lied to a Federal Grand jury and he was called on it. Only a democrat would think telling a lie to a Federal Grand Jury no matter what the question was is OK."
And only a Republican would think that a Federal grand jury investigating a purely personal civil matter with no relevance to the interests of the people of the United States is okay. And Bobb's comment is simply bullshit. Clinton supporters never contended he was above the law. To be a Bush supporter can ONLY require the belief that Bush is above the law, again and again, which is probably why his approval ratings are shrinking: Because fewer and fewer Americans can stomach the hypocrisy such a stand requires.
Then again, Clinton's sole example of "acting above the law" was trying to finesse the meaning of sex in an embarrassing situation. Bush, on the other hand, has repeatedly acted in a manner that shows he has no regard for environmental treaties, the Geneva convention, and the constitution of the United States (to name a few). No one died from Clinton's lies. Thousands have died from Bush's lies. Yet Clinton is impeached...and Bush ISN'T? If it were only that a double standard were being applied to Bush, that would be bad enough. It's that NO standard is being applied.
PAD
Bobb (Waller) & Novafan,
Please...... Clinton lied about having an affair. Saying that that is anywhere near on the same level of the lies that the ever increasing pile of evidence is showing that this administration has pulled is like saying that a half hearted slap across the face is the legal equivalent of beating someone nearly to death with a ball bat.
Well, since there seems to be another Bobb, of the (Waller) variety here, and we seem to have radically divergent views on at least a few points, I guess I'd better revert to the Bobb Alfred name.
So from now on, I, who was once kingbobb, then just Bobb, will no post as Bobb Alfred, for clarity.
Clinton's impeachment was over oral sex. It was about statements he made regarding his personal relationship with an intern. I've seen people explain why it was Congress' business to investigate...because as the Chief Executive, Congress has a right to know who might be compromising the office.
Unlike Mr. Abramhof, who just about every Republican would like if the country just looked the other way and ingored the influence he has onn multiple offices.
Which is not to say that it's OK that Clinton lied to the grand jury. He shouldn't have. But Congress should also have realized that his lie had nothing to do with his competency to continue as president, or the appropriateness of him doing so. Half of Congress would have to resign if having an extramarital affair were all that was required to remove someone from office. And if lieing were all that were required, we'd be holding special elections for every seat tomorrow...and never filling them all at the same time.
I'll be honest about Clinton. I have in the past. He made a mistake. He tried to weasal out of it on National TV. And he skirted the line of perjury, but by the terms of the investigation, he didn't lie. He didn't commit perjury.
Still, he had an affair while married, and a lot of people place a lot of stock on moral values. But if we're going to play word games, like Bobb (Waller) and Novafan want to, we can do that. But as a word game, Clinton didn't do anything wrong. While under oath, per the definitions of the Grand Jury, he told the truth. He didn't think he was above the law. He was skirting the edges of the law, but he was still well within it. As his acquittal shows.
It's not nearly the same thing. Bush doesn't skirt on the edges of the law. He waits until someone gives him an excuse that sounds good, and then he runs right over the edge of the law and far, far into beyond the law territory. Clinton avoided the law. Bush IS the law, currently.
Hmm, Bush = Judge Dredd.
The GOP in Congress are about as likely to allow an impeachment go forward as Jessica Simpson is to win the Nobel prize for physics.
Now, now -- not so fast. After all, if Britney Spears can be an expert in semiconductors, then we're already up to at least one sign of an Improbability Drive at work...
No, I'm not kidding. See below.
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
TWL
He was skirting the edges of the law, but he was still well within it. As his acquittal shows.
That's...debatable. The acquittal during the Senate hearings merely meant that the offence did not rise to the level worthy of removal from office.
As to whether or not he actually committed perjury, I'd say his acceptance of what was essentially a plea bargain on his last day in office answered that question.
But you know what? I find myself thinking about Bill Clinton hardly at all these days and when I do it's mostly when I see the passion of the anti-Bush crowd and wonder if I came off as nutty as they do when I was railing at BC...sadly, the answer is quite likely yes.
And this may get me kicked out of the rabid rightwing merry marching society but wouldn't it be a total kick to see him as First Husband? I mean, yeah, eventually he'd do Something Bad and we'd all be reading about it for months but he'd be having so much fun enjoying all the perks of the position with none of the soul crushing responsibility that comes with the job...it would satisfy all of our lust for both politics and celebrity gossip all at once. Then maybe we could concentrate on building a space elevator.
I suspect Bubba Clinton would be bored as first husband. Yeah, he'd love all the perks, but from all I've read about him, he's a policy wonk at heart and loves nothing more than to get involved in the minutiae of government. If Hillary were to become president (still a huge if, IMHO), I would not be surprised if she nominated him for a cabinet level position.
As for the rightwing merry marchin society, it still amazes me how much bile they carry towards him. Reading some of the rightwing message boards, you'd think he's still in office. And when you look back at his term in office: balanced budget*, defense of marriage act, internet censorship act (excuse me "communications decency act"), welfare reform, etc. The GOP actually got more of their domestic agenda passed under Clinton than they have under Dubya.
*Okay, realize this one is no longer part of the domestic agenda, but you get what I mean.
As for the rightwing merry marchin society, it still amazes me how much bile they carry towards him.
Trust me, it'll be the year 2525 before the Bush haters stop bringing him up at every opportunity. It's a cliche that the extremists on both sides are more alike than they want to admit but it's so true.
I think Hillary will make him the UN representative. He's be great at it and it would allow him to get out of her hair and travel around the world meeting people and having sex with them.
"Trust me, it'll be the year 2525 before the Bush haters stop bringing him up at every opportunity. It's a cliche that the extremists on both sides are more alike than they want to admit but it's so true."
True as that may be, I can't wait to stop talking about Bush.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 4, 2006 03:08 PM
Trust me, it'll be the year 2525 before the Bush haters stop bringing him up at every opportunity. It's a cliche that the extremists on both sides are more alike than they want to admit but it's so true.
I dunno if anyone is still reading this thread, but I've been following the latest news about the Valerie Plame "outing," and the evidence that points to Bush and Cheney as the "outers." I realize they haven't exactly found anything like the Nixon tapes, here, but I think this looks bad for the prez and his veep.
Bill, I don't think talk of impeachment is the stuff of the "Bush-hating fringe" anymore. I realize that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has not accused Cheney of authorizing the release of Plame's identity, and hasn't accused Bush of doing anything illegal. They're still somewhat insulated.
But the evidence keeps creeping closer and closer to them. I'm just saying, there may be a smoking gun lying around somewhere and Fitzgerald may stumble across it -- if he hasn't already.
I think Hillary will make him the UN representative. He's be great at it and it would allow him to get out of her hair and travel around the world meeting people and having sex with them.
I have a restraining order that prohibits Bill Clinton from getting near me for just that reason.
I don't know Bill, when I first saw the headlines about the latest "news" I thought "Whoa, this must be big." but when actually read it...if I'm understanding this correctly the news was that Libby said that classified info was disseminated to the news folks with the knowledge and approval of the president. There was nothing in there that actually suggested that the news in question was about Plame. Since the President has the ability to declassify stuff on a whim, no laws were broken (unless he deliberately outed Plame). The only news here is that it can be used against Bush because of his statements in the past that he hated unauthorized leaks and even then it can be pointed out that authorized leaks are another matter entirely.
Unless I'm wrong, always a possibility, this seems more like Libby making trouble for the press than for the president. His strategy seems to be forcing as many news folk to spill their guts as possible until they either refuse to cooperate (which I think could help get him off--how do you convict a guy if the witnesses he needs for a fair trial refuse to cooperate with the law?) or start to put pressure on the prosecuter to drop the charges. I note that the story has died out considerably.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 9, 2006 12:25 AM
I don't know Bill, when I first saw the headlines about the latest "news" I thought "Whoa, this must be big." but when actually read it...if I'm understanding this correctly the news was that Libby said that classified info was disseminated to the news folks with the knowledge and approval of the president. There was nothing in there that actually suggested that the news in question was about Plame. Since the President has the ability to declassify stuff on a whim, no laws were broken (unless he deliberately outed Plame). The only news here is that it can be used against Bush because of his statements in the past that he hated unauthorized leaks and even then it can be pointed out that authorized leaks are another matter entirely.
Unless I'm wrong, always a possibility, this seems more like Libby making trouble for the press than for the president. His strategy seems to be forcing as many news folk to spill their guts as possible until they either refuse to cooperate (which I think could help get him off--how do you convict a guy if the witnesses he needs for a fair trial refuse to cooperate with the law?) or start to put pressure on the prosecuter to drop the charges. I note that the story has died out considerably.
I certainly agree with you that unless any new facts come to light, this story isn't very incendiary. It certainly makes Bush and Cheney look bad, but if that were a crime I'd've been swinging from the gallows ages ago.
In my brief experience as a journalist, however, I learned that law enforcement officials are often two or three steps ahead of where they say they are in a case. The fact that the president authorized declassification of information, and some of that information "just happened" to include the status of Valerie Plame, leads me to wonder if there isn't something more lying underneath. I don't think it's a huge leap.
That said, the scenario you mentioned where witnesses refuse to cooperate is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility by any stretch. Although I'm not sure what you mean by the story "dying out." I was reading a new article about it online just last night, and I think if nothing else angry democrats will keep this in the headlines for at least another few days.
And even if the investigation never turns up solid evidence against Bush, I doubt it'll help his approval numbers. If he wants to be remembered as anything other than a failed president, he'd better pull a rabbit out of his hat. And then soon.
And didn't you see? I made a little Clinton joke, just for you. It wasn't all that funny, but it's the thought that counts. Think of it as an offering from this raving liberal to someone on the other side (although, as I've said in the past, I actually don't consider either of us to be on a "side" and don't think you're a "raving" anything.)
Oh I appreciated the Clinton joke! Though, as I've said, I'm sort of beginning to like the big lug. He's definitely a character.
Bush is definitely in a quandary. Something needs to be done with Iran but he has little political capital left to spend. The Israelis did the world a favor once with Iraq and are unlikely to repeat the effort, especially now that Sharon is incapacitated. None of the European leaders are strong enough to risk inflaming public opinion: the Italian leader is all but gone, Blair is about to retire, the German one is too new, France has enough trouble already and it's leaders WISH they had Bush's lousy poll ratings...
I realize that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has not accused Cheney of authorizing the release of Plame's identity
I read something the other day that said that Fitzgerald had in fact said that this appeared to be a concerted effort by Bush & Cheney to 'out' Plame.
I'd have to see if I can find the article again though.
But then, based on what we know, I think many of us have already come to the same conclusion long ago.
Either way, Bush has once again proved he's a hypocrit of the highest order, saying he hates leakers and will punish them, then he's as damned guilty as those he wants to punish.
In baseball, there's the "Mendoza line", which refers to a really bad batting average.
With Bush's approval ratings continuing to plunge, I think he's going to set a distinction with the "Bush line".