DUmp confusion

[Carl]

Two threads going on at the same time..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7435395

Karmadillo (1000+ posts)        Sun Jan-10-10 05:44 PM
Original message
Legal Experts to Senate:*Signing Statements = UNCONSTITUTIONAL+IMPEACHABLE
   
"Times have changed. Times are different. In these days we should take an objective view of old grievances. They're part of history."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

June 27, 2006
Legal Experts to Senate Committee: Bush "Signing Statements" Unconstitutional, Impeachable

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

In a hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on presidential signing statements, which Ranking Member Leahy called "a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances." Recent reports have highlighted how Bush has issued these orders in record numbers and exercised unprecedented overreach by giving himself the authority to ignore certain parts of the laws he signs.

Because of the extralegal nature of the signing statements, there is nothing for Congress or the Supreme Court to actually overrule. Nevertheless, the statements are binding for policy implementation.

Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.

"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically under President George W. Bush, flout the Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count."

Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitution."

Sebastian Doyle  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jan-10-10 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Anything the Chimp signed is unconstitutional
   Because his entire pResidency was illegitimate and unconstitutional. As far as I'm concerned, NOTHING that ****ing piece of shit signed has any validity whatsoever.

Xipe Totec  (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. A day late, and a spine short n/t

defendandprotect  (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Signing Statements were simply Bush's "FU" to Congress/legislators . . .
   and his notice to corporations that the barn doors were open --

doors to the Treasury open -- go to it!!

And they did !!

Just started but no doubt will have some traction.

However from earlier today..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7433794



ruggerson  (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 11:48 AM
Original message
NYT: Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws
   
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is lowering the volume in a long-running argument between Congress and the executive branch over when, if ever, a president has the power to bypass federal statutes he has signed into law.

Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.

In Mr. Obama’s first months in office last year, he followed recent precedent and frequently issued statements, when signing bills into law, that the executive branch could disregard provisions that he considered unconstitutional restraints on executive power.

But Mr. Obama has not issued a signing statement since last summer, when one claim set off a bipartisan uproar in Congress. And the administration has decided that Mr. Obama will sometimes sign bills containing provisions it deems problematic without issuing a signing statement that challenges those sections.

Still, the administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional, especially in cases where it has previously voiced objections elsewhere, officials said.

The White House disclosed its shift when asked why it had not put out a signing statement last month, when Mr. Obama signed a $447 billion spending bill for 2010. It contained several provisions that restricted executive power in ways that the administration had previously asserted were unconstitutional — including in signing statements attached to similar bills and in policy statements it issued about the spending bill as lawmakers drew it up.

“The administration’s views about certain provisions in the omnibus spending bill had previously been publicly communicated,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, “so it wasn’t necessary to duplicate them in a signing statement.”

denem (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. The difference is a signing statement is an Assertion of Excecutive Power.
   There's no "New Route" in the executive taking an expansive view of i's power under the Constitution, nor Congress acting to restrict the Executive.

What is more significant is how the Executive actually conducts itself. Nixon didn't bother much with Signing Statements or anything else.

Obama, a constitutional lawyer is likely to be one of the more cautious advocates of the Executive's prerogative.

That is not to say that the legacy of the "Unitary Executive" has not permeated through Federal Departments, particularly the DOJ.

 


Some qualms...

katandmoon  (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. So in other words, while Bush told us which laws he'd ignore, Obama will make us guess.

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. yes, apparently they acknowledge they are now doing this surreptitiously

Stop that kind of talk...

denem (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. No. The question is not what an Administrations says, but what it actually does.
   Bush's signing statements were the least of it.

flyarm  (1000+ posts)          Sun Jan-10-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. oh boy..but we are not supposed toget upset about this shit because Obama is pres?   
   is that right ?????

Ok so i am now supposed to get my jollies off because this is being done by a democratic president..forget that i was pissed as shit when Bush did this shit..but i am supposed to contain myslf and stfu because a democratic president is doing this illegal shit right??

Isn't that what some here are bitching about..that we should just STFU when our own is doing this and ****ing all our laws..and completely ****ing the rule sof law..and our constitution..i am supposed to party hardy becuase it is a Dem doing it..isn't that the shit we see daily here by a certain group that doesn't want us getting pissed as hell??

Well I am ****ing pissed..and no amount of propaganda and no amount of intimidation will shut me up about it!

and i have that stinking feeling..new boss same as.........

Which killed it.

[franksolich]

Oh my.

Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland, the "flyarm" primitive, is NOT demonstrating signs of good breeding, swilling language like a longshoreman there.

[GOBUCKS]

Oh my.

Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland, the "flyarm" primitive, is NOT demonstrating signs of good breeding, swilling language like a longshoreman there.

DUmmy flyarm has just tumbled to the fact that if the jug-eared muslim starts taxing her Cadillac medical insurance, provided by the Baltimore Orioles, well, then, the Baltimore Orioles will just quit offering it. DUmmy flyarm, now apparently living in Florida, won't be able to afford her high society doctors, and will instead be jammed into an HMO GP's waiting room along with a hundred Mexicans and Cubans. Lots of DUmmies are suddenly starting to realize this is part of the package when you elect a socialist government, and they are shocked. They, and the people who stayed home because McCain wasn't pure enough, are getting what they deserve.

[kenth]

DUmmy flyarm has just tumbled to the fact that if the jug-eared muslim starts taxing her Cadillac medical insurance, provided by the Baltimore Orioles, well, then, the Baltimore Orioles will just quit offering it. DUmmy flyarm, now apparently living in Florida, won't be able to afford her high society doctors, and will instead be jammed into an HMO GP's waiting room along with a hundred Mexicans and Cubans. Lots of DUmmies are suddenly starting to realize this is part of the package when you elect a socialist government, and they are shocked. They, and the people who stayed home because McCain wasn't pure enough, are getting what they deserve.

They convince themselves that in the land of the equals, they will be on top.

[DefiantSix]

They, and the people who stayed home because McCain wasn't pure enough, are getting what they deserve.

And what about those of us who held their noses and voted for McLame on the hope against hope that Mr. Charisma would keel over from a coronary infarction during the victory celebration and Sarah Palin would be POTUS?  What are we rubes getting?

[The Village Idiot]

And what about those of us who held their noses and voted for McLame on the hope against hope that Mr. Charisma would keel over from a coronary infarction during the victory celebration and Sarah Palin would be POTUS?  What are we rubes getting?

Rube Goldberg Healthcare

[AllosaursRus]

They convince themselves that in the land of the equals, they will be on top.

Yep! DUmmies is so stupid they thought it would only effect us ignorant conservatives and they would be spared by the "Friends of One Big Ass Mistake America"!