Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:28 PM
Original message |
ASSUMING we do re-take the house/senate.. the following MUST be on every bill passed.. |
|
(or some form thereof)
"The wording and meaning of this legislation are as set forth in this bill. There SHALL NOT BE and WILL NOT BE any modification of meaning or wording of this legislation as passed by any "after the fact" modifications, amendments or SIGNING STATEMENTS. The will of the people, as enacted by the House/Senate shall not be changed except by the methods set forth in the Constitution".
Translated: sign it or veto it and take the lumps Chucklenuts....
|
ck4829
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Sounds good, no reason why we can't do it. |
bullimiami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
2. its already part of the goddamed constitution. bush doesnt MAKE the laws. |
|
he signs or vetoes them and he enforces them.
in a sane world this alone would be grounds for impeachment. the entire congress should be furious.
|
ms liberty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:31 PM
Response to Original message |
Parisle
(849 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:32 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Follow-up question on this,...... |
|
----You would think that if Congress is constitutionally allowed to over-ride a veto with a "veto-proof majority" (2/3's? .. 3/4th's?).... then they should likewise be able to do the same thing to Bush's signing statements, eh?
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Intersting point... methinks we will see 'signing statements'.. |
|
.. before the SCOTUS in '07..
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. Signing statements have no constitutional status. |
|
They are a convention that has existed for some time in a modest form. Bush and his theory of the urinary executive have transformed 'interpretational' signing statements into 'editorial' signing statements. It will be interesting to watch the original intent conservatives on the court trying to find the sort of power bush has invented for himself in the document they claim is complete as is.
|
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Think your last sentence should be part of the contract! |
|
:rofl: EVERY time they send something to his desk, it should include: "Sign it or veto it and take the lumps, Chucklenuts"
Nothing quite as distasteful to a politican than being openly ridiculed. ;)
Maybe the new DEM Congress should get a rubbers stamp made with that quote.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-03-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. It's going to be on a bumper sticker... |
|
.. the morning of the 8th if all goes well :) along with a coupla of others I've got planned :)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:12 PM
Response to Original message |