edhopper
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:46 PM
Original message |
Bush just gave himself the line-item-veto. |
|
Just saw on the news (it was CNN or MSNBC) that Smirky McChimp issued an exec. order that no agency would implement anything that Congress funds that he considers an earmark. This is amazingly unconstitutional (what else is new?) Since it's the Congress that designates where to allocate money NOT the President. Will Congress do anything about this new egregious power grab, probably not.
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message |
1. And he told us about it the SOTU last night, with a giggle and a smirk. |
Disturbed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. 350 more days of this Silver Spoon Sociopath |
|
Busholini can still do a lot of damage to Amerika until he is forced out of office.
|
DadOf2LittleAngels
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I dont know, I know hes an ass but lets assume the shoe is on the other foot and a GOP controlled congress tries to pack gifts for the fat cats into earmarks and President Obama as the person charged with running the agencies receiving the money decides that it better should serve the people..
No doubt that shurbs motives are not good but is the action itself of telling agencies how to use the funding allocated unconstitutional?
That being said I am no fan of the line item veto..
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
31. With Pelosi smiling right behind him. |
truebrit71
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Umm. yeah...that's unconstitutional ya dickhead.... |
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. "Unconstitutional"? HAH! In Bush's America, there's no such thing. |
jtrockville
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
17. damn piece of paper.... * waits for national archives to go up in flames * |
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message |
3. dems have been fairly powerless in congress. |
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
expect a strongly-worded letter to be issued very soon now.
|
Junkdrawer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
11. Well, only after the sub-committee publishes the result of their investigation. |
|
The report has been delayed due to objections by minority members, but the full committee is expected to vote to urge the release of the report soon.
|
ProgressiveFool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
18. Brows will be furrowed! Arms will be crossed, and feet tapping angrily! /nt |
mwb970
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
32. They'll hit him hard and fast |
|
with a major, and I mean major leafleting campaign.
|
Why Syzygy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Our governance. We need a Super Hero.
|
madrchsod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
6. not much they can do with out 60 votes to impeach him |
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. It is time for the end run. |
immoderate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
22. 51% to impeach. Two thirds to convict. |
|
Congress could impeach Bush in five minutes. Of course building a good case would take longer.
I'm for it. All Bush's crimes will be broadcast in the hearings. And then they will be broadcast again during the trial in the senate. Where the details and the evidence will be presented to a huge audience. And then, worst case, the people will get to watch pusillanimous Republican senators vote against the clear evidence and cast a purely political vote. Great for ads against them!
I say impeach -- what the hell else do they have to do?
--IMM
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:50 PM
Response to Original message |
8. It's worse than that! It only takes effect NEXT YEAR! That means |
|
it will only effect the NEW PREZ and the NEW CONGRESS! As CNN said, he's kicking the can down the road!
|
truebrit71
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Doesn't matter...it's STILL un-constitutional...The first two years of the next Presidency will be.. |
|
..spent UNDOING the stupid and illegal shit the current moran has been doing...
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. I wonder if it's possible to issue ONE blanket Ex. Order to |
|
overturn EVERY ex. order that Shrub issued? Just make his impact go away in one fell swoop!
|
truebrit71
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. Kind like Joe Pesci in my Cousin Vinny? "Ya honor, everything that guy just said is BULLSHIT." |
|
:rofl:
I wish that it were so...
|
TroglodyteScholar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
30. The next president... |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 05:19 PM by Concerned GA Voter
...could abuse an executive order just one more time in order to effect a blanket nullification, and include a clause ordering that no further abuse so egregious should ever be committed using such a vehicle. It would have to be clear on what constitutes an abuse, and it would basically only be a gesture since the precedent has basically been set.
What's funny is I don't trust any of the frontrunning candidates on either side to take office and then stand up to denounce/undo Bush's outrageous expansion of the executive's power. He has opened up the door to a whole new level of power hunger which will probably never close, and anyone who has a prayer at becoming president is simply salivating in anticipation of continuing the misuse of those ill-gained powers.
|
DadOf2LittleAngels
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
27. Congress has the power *and responsability* to recind exe orders |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 05:12 PM by DadOf2LittleAngels
They are supposed to be used in a time of crisis when action has to happen too fast for congress to act... Katrina would have been a good time *sigh*...
But EXE orders (and I don't care who issues them) should not sit up there acting for all time. Its always the act of power grabbing president and a chickensh*t pass the buck congress..
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
28. I remember Shrub overturned a few of Clinton's when he first took |
DadOf2LittleAngels
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
29. Yea a president *can* do it... |
|
but congress has the *duty* to do it...
|
JBoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
|
His Executive order applies only to earmarks not explicitly enacted into law by legislation. He can't touch the earmarks in the recently approved spending bill, for example. He also said that he would veto future bills that didn't cut the cost of earmarks in half. More explanation here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPMZ7iSZa-gDStAOeC6GisjqYKkQD8UF8Q580
|
Yael
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
14. The Constitution is so 1990s. |
|
Get with the program. We are in a new century now!
:eyes:
|
UALRBSofL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
20. Correct me if I'm wrong |
|
But I was always under the impression a Line-Item-Veto was unconstitutional, but, this isn't the first time Bush has done this.
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
35. the line item veto is unconstitutional, but this isn't a line item veto |
|
Its a direction to executive branch agencies not to follow instructions not written in the statute but contained only in the committee report or not even in the report, just in a letter or phone call from a member of congress or staffer telling them that money appropriated to the agency without strings in the statute has to be spent in a particular way.
I have little problem with this. If Congress wants money to go for a bridge to nowhere, it should be in the legislation that they pass, not in a committee report.
|
Yael
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
37. I believe that he is saying he will reject the whole shootin match |
|
I could be wrong. There are no depths this criminal administration have not sunk to. Yet.
|
Iwasthere
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:00 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I'm tellin ya... he also does NOT plan to leave office |
Richard Steele
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
40. He sure as hell doesn't ACT like a guy who's planning to leave, does he? nm |
The Stranger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
21. I'm glad so many DUers think that the Democratic Congressional leadership/majority is helpless to do |
|
anything. Considering that Bush is Public Enemy No. 1 right now in the public's mind, and that impeachment hearings would provide a place for worlds of anger to concentrate, possibly blowing a hole in the very fabric of the universe, I'm glad that impeachment is still "off the table."
|
zeemike
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:04 PM
Response to Original message |
23. The Bush Crime family has something on the leadership |
|
I don't know what it is but no matter how outrageous his conduct they just look the other way, and pretend it didn't happen. If Obama is seriously the one to change things then it will be interesting to see how long it lasts until they get to him too.
|
closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message |
24. No, Congress will do nothing, and since the courts are Republican, his order will not be ruled uncon |
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
41. his order wont' be ruled unconstitutional because its not |
|
As far as has been disclosed, the order only applies to non-statutory earmarks -- efforts by members of congress to direct specific spending without putting into law. Most often such 'soft' earmarks are contained in an "explanatory" statement that accompanies the law -- sort of Congress' version of a signing statement, if you will. While legislative history is a valid tool for interpreting ambiguous language in a statute, its only an interpretative tool, its not binding law. Put another way, if Ted Stevens puts an instruction into an explanatory statment that $XX of an agency's budget is to be used to build a bridge to nowhere, and the agency doesn't build the bridge to nowhere, do you think someone could successfully sue the agency to spend the money based on the explanatory statement?
Again, if chimpy tried to instruct an agency not to comply with a statutory earmark, that would be unconstitutional. But why we would defend soft earmarks is something I can't quite understand, unless suddenly we're in favor of bridges to nowhere being hidden in explanatory statemetns.
|
earth mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message |
25. Next up: Crowning himself King George. |
Scriptor Ignotus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:47 PM
Response to Original message |
33. well I guess a Democratic President will get it too |
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 05:54 PM
Response to Original message |
34. actually, he didn't give himself a line item veto or do anything unconstitutional |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 05:56 PM by onenote
Sorry. Its not that I want to defend the bozo, but raging against what he's done isn't politically astute, particularly since it is completely legal. WHile I haven't seen the text of the actual exectutive order, the 'official' description of it indicates that it only directs federal agencies not to honor non-statutory "earmarks" found in a Committee report or otherwise communicated to the agency (e.g., phone-marking) by Members of Congress or persons acting on their behalf. If the earmark is in the statute, the exec order doesn't apply. And no line item veto is involved.
And in terms of politics, arguing in favor of the earmarking process that brought us such things as the bridge to nowhere isn't too smart either.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
36. You are totally full of crap. |
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
39. you are totally wrong |
|
you have something substantive to say, put it on the table.
Otherwise, you're just a windbag.
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-29-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message |
38. Constitution? You mean that damn piece of &((^*( paper! |
|
Per Capitol Hill Blue... and you know what? To all who believe CHP to be full of crap ACTIONS indicate they were right.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 12:10 AM
Response to Original message |