Lifetimedem
(652 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:37 PM
Original message |
So if this "giveaway " passes ...what are the odds of a presidential signing statement |
|
eliminating everything not in the original bill he proposed and all the "unfunded" mandates also being wiped out with a stroke of the kings pen?
This is too important for "trust" at this point... he should be asked up front
|
ixion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
and even if they 'promise' they won't, I'd still say it's a given.
|
Cooley Hurd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Recommended - a really good question... |
AndyA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message |
3. The last statement in the bill needs to be: |
|
"By signing this bill, the President acknowledges and accepts that any rights, whether real, perceived, or otherwise, to modify this bill in any manner by use of a signing statement will nullify and void this bill."
That should take care of that.
|
dkofos
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message |
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Should add a clause to the bill then... |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 01:43 PM by calipendence
Any effort to alter this agreement through signing statements or not following it's language in executing the tenets of this bill as laid out, would be viewed as grounds for IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT and REMOVAL FROM OFFICE!
Perhaps find making impeachment even part of the bill, so that if it's changed, then in effect, Bush would be impeached THEN, when he issued the signing statement, since a vote would already be cast in the house on it. Not sure if that could be done, but might make * think twice abou f'ing with it!
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. "Viewed as"? How about "trigger automatic"? |
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Yea, that was kind of what the second part of my post said... |
|
If they could make that stick as "automatic", then I say go for it. Not sure if Republicans would help pass it, or if "impeachment off the table" Pelosi would stand in the way of this language being added, but perhaps if there's enough pressure on them to pass it if it is the right thing to do, they'll do it.
|
TooBigaTent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |
8. The beauty of signing statements is that even if there is a specific passage barring them, their |
|
very nature gives them veto power over the bill itself. They cannot be prevented. That is what a unitary presidency is all about.
|
Lifetimedem
(652 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
He can chop it up/slice it dice it and we can do nothing about it
I wish the congress could let us know about any signing statement attached to it.
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
9. That may be the number one reason to wait until Obama is in office to deal with this. |
|
Congress is arguing over wording of the bill...and the whole thing may be totally pointless.
|
MindMatter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-01-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Let's call it Carlysle's $700,000,000,000 parting gift. Now we have to make sure the we truly get rid of these assholes.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |