Let's Outsource Congress!

[Luke T.]

Whether the objections are valid or invalid is not the issue. The question has become "who can object to the objections?"

I linked to an article about the ABA.

And there's always the Supreme Court. That's what it is there for.

 

[dsm]

I linked to an article about the ABA.

Hmmm. Yes, missed that.

And there's always the Supreme Court. That's what it is there for.

Possibly. However, to get the Supreme Court involved would require someone taking the President to court over a question of how the President is performing his duties. The question is who could (or would) do that?

• The Attorney General -- why would he when he works for Bush?
• The Congress -- why would they when they are (largely) in his party?
• The ABA -- do they have the authority?
• Who else?

 

[Luke T.]

Hmmm. Yes, missed that.



Possibly. However, to get the Supreme Court involved would require someone taking the President to court over a question of how the President is performing his duties.

He must first break one of the laws.

The question is who could (or would) do that?

Any injured party. Someone whose phone was tapped, for example.

Or someone who was denied a federal appointment. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

 

[Apollyon]

People don't seek office for the money.

Yes and no. People often seek office for the power they gain, and money naturally follows power. Then you have politicians who buy a nice litle out of the way property on the cheap under their wife's name, railroad through a road project that just happens to go straight through that property, and sell it to the taxpayers for an incredible profit. That is something that is happening in my hometown right now.

And they spend other people's money to get there.

With that money also comes expectations. The Sugar Industry in Florida doesn't pour millions into campaign coffers out of the goodness of their heart.

 

[Luke T.]

Yes and no. People often seek office for the power they gain, and money naturally follows power. Then you have politicians who buy a nice litle out of the way property on the cheap under their wife's name, railroad through a road project that just happens to go straight through that property, and sell it to the taxpayers for an incredible profit. That is something that is happening in my hometown right now.

By money, I meant the salary that is under discussion. I saw Mr. Smith Goes To Washington like everybody else.

And it's a dam, not a road.

 

[Art Vandelay]

In the name of national security President Bush has chosen to ignore 750 statutes passed by Congress.

Cite?

They usually neglect to mention that Bush has issued more signing statements than any other President and that signing statements issued by other administrations rarely questioned the Constitution.

Bush has made 750 signing statements, on 110 bills. FDR rejected 635 bills outright, Cleveland 584, Truman 250, and Eisenhower 181. So even if you somehow consider a signing statement as bad as a veto, there are FOUR presidents that have done more, and the total is more than twenty-five times Bush's.

And what does this have to do with Congress?

Whether the objections are valid or invalid is not the issue. The question has become "who can object to the objections?"

Well, it could be considered a veto, in which case a two-thirds majority can make signing statements irrelevant. And they're largely irrelevant, anyway. If the president has the authority to ignore part of a law, then he doesn't need a signing statement to do so. And if he doesn't have the authority, then a signing statement isn't going to help him.

Possibly. However, to get the Supreme Court involved would require someone taking the President to court over a question of how the President is performing his duties. The question is who could (or would) do that?

Anyone who's an interested party.

The Congress -- why would they when they are (largely) in his party?

So why are they passing legislation that Bush doesn't like?

 

[Apollyon]

By money, I meant the salary that is under discussion. I saw Mr. Smith Goes To Washington like everybody else.

Was that a prelude to Mr. and Mrs. Smith Goes to Namibia?

And it's a dam, not a road.

A damn shame, that's for sure.

 

[Mephisto]

What about the guy who makes your fries? You think he doesn't have expenses? I'll be sympathetic to a Congressman's need for a goddam freaking second house when he is sympathetic to a working man's need for a pair of shoes.

Why Luke, that sounds almost Communistic. Your avid defense of signing statements and the President's overuse of them almost had me believing that you also support torture and secret prisons.

 

[Mephisto]

And what does this have to do with Congress?

So, you don't think signing statements as they are used by the Bush administration have made Congress irrelevant? They pass a law banning the torture of detainees only to have Dubya circumvent that law behind the scenes to do what he wants? Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm talking to a guy who thinks that the population of an invaded country doesn't have the right to rise in opposition to their occupation.

So why are they passing legislation that Bush doesn't like?

Who knows? Maybe they have found a conscience, maybe they're trying to fool the world into believing that Americans don't advocate torture, or secret prisons. Maybe they want to continue belief in an old tradition that dictated that Americans have a right to due process of law, a right to privacy and a government by and for the people.

 

[Mephisto]

Cite?

" . . . Such statements - issued when presidents sign bills into law - are a long White House tradition. Bush has produced a record total - more than 750 of them - that lay out his interpretation of the new law to Congress, the courts, and the public."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p01s03-uspo.html
____________

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
__________

Bush has made 750 signing statements, on 110 bills. FDR rejected 635 bills outright, Cleveland 584, Truman 250, and Eisenhower 181. So even if you somehow consider a signing statement as bad as a veto, there are FOUR presidents that have done more, and the total is more than twenty-five times Bush's.

And what does this have to do with Congress?

Not much really, unless you're paying attention:

"Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined "prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."

The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.

As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
__________

What's next? Round up our guns? Have us all wear gold stars on our clothing or tattoo our bodies for easier identification?

I wonder how his support from the religious right will react when the rumor that Bush (in the name of national security, of course) will require every man, woman and child who claims American citizenship have a computer chip ("for ID purposes only") implanted in either their forehead or their right hand is leaked to the press?

 

[Beerina]

A signing statement in which the President states an objection here.

I have today signed into law H.R. 2121, the "Russian Democracy Act of 2002." This Act seeks to promote democracy, the rule of law, and an independent media in the Russian Federation.

Section 3(b) of the Act purports to establish U.S. policy towards Russia. My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy in section 3(b) as U.S. foreign policy. Given the Constitution's commitment to the presidency of the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory, giving them the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Valid objection, or not?

Quite reasonable in this particular case. The Constitution expressly grants the president the power to set the nation's foreign policy (excepting for special cases like spending money, or a direct declaration of war).

If Congress were to say, "no, this is not advisory, this is mandatory policy", the president could take it to the Supreme Court, and would probably win.


Some chunks are completely dry and academic and seem like normal tit-for-tat power struggling. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the president can decide how to implement a particular law, or what branch of his own exectutive branch can execute it:

Section 645 of the Act purports to require the President to implement a law through a particular subordinate officer in the Department of Commerce. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the President's authority to supervise the unitary executive branch, including the authority to direct which officers in the executive branch shall assist the President in faithfully executing the law.

I.e. "You will create this new position, and this person will administer this law." "Ahhh, thanks for the recommendation. I'll do it however I want 'cause the Constitution lets me."

Anybody got any examples that aren't normal power fighting between the two branchs? Something that is not a reasonable debate between the two?

 

[BPSCG]

To be fair, they ought to be paid a reasonable wage.

"If you pay peanuts, don't be surprised if the only job applicants you get are monkeys."

 

[Apollyon]

"If you pay peanuts, don't be surprised if the only job applicants you get are monkeys."

Or...erm...elephants.

 

[Mephisto]

"If you pay peanuts, don't be surprised if the only job applicants you get are monkeys."

Ah! BPSCG my old friend - I wouldn't have considered my string worthy if it hadn't attracted you. I hope you're not personally suffering from the flooding in your area (psst . . . don't wait for federal aid).

I got a good chuckle out of your post, but what I want to know is . . . how come so many of these monkeys are so rich to begin with, and how many of them support the proposed increase in their salary?

 

[dsm]

Bush has made 750 signing statements, on 110 bills. FDR rejected 635 bills outright, Cleveland 584, Truman 250, and Eisenhower 181.

Cite? In particular, I'm confused by the term "rejected".

Well, it could be considered a veto, in which case a two-thirds majority can make signing statements irrelevant. And they're largely irrelevant, anyway. If the president has the authority to ignore part of a law, then he doesn't need a signing statement to do so. And if he doesn't have the authority, then a signing statement isn't going to help him.

Make them irrelevant how? Currently, the signing statement represents the President's authority as leader of the Executive Branch and is not considered a veto. Therefore, there is no precedent for invoking a two-thirds majority of Congress to strike it down. The question of whether he has the authority to ignore laws has not been decided, but there appears to be no way to put it before the courts.

Anyone who's an interested party.

On what Constitutional grounds exactly?

So why are they passing legislation that Bush doesn't like?

Because, in believing that the President can ignore laws that they don't like, they are free to pass legislation that makes them look good to their electorate.

 

[Mephisto]

Until . . .

Bush tosses Congress aside like a used whore . . . that is . . . until he needs them!

It was very interesting that today Bush called upon Congress to introduce resolutions that would punish journalists for leaking "classified" information to the public. This is obviously stemming from the recent disclosures by the New York Times as well as past leaks (NSA wiretapping, etc.) I would think that the target for legal actions would be the people within the government who are actually DOING the leaking (the disclosure of classified information is already a crime), but this is Dubya's chance to quell that pesky media.

Bush also (laughingly)called upon journalists to cooperate with the administration in whatever measures he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

"Ohio Republican Rep. Michael Oxley said such disclosures helped terrorists hide their activities more effectively.

"What's the average terrorist going to think? He's going to find a different way to move his money around, that's what he's going to do," said Oxley, sponsor of the House resolution. "He's going to change his behavior."

Oxley's nonbinding resolution condemns the disclosre of classified information and says the House "expects the cooperation of all news media ... by not disclosing classified intelligence programs."

http://today.reuters.com/investing/...T190824Z_01_N29198460_RTRIDST_0_MEDIA-USA.XML
____________

"Many House Republicans agree with Mr. Hastert's sentiment, and plan to support a symbolic resolution criticizing "certain media organizations" for revealing details of the Bush administration's counterterrorism programs. The resolution also condemns leaks to newspapers and the disclosure of classified programs, saying such action "needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks."
The House "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs," the resolution says.
It does not specifically name the New York Times, but "it's pretty obvious who it is," a top Republican aide said. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060628-115307-2909r.htm

 

[Apollyon]

Bush tosses Congress aside like a used whore . . . that is . . . until he needs them!

Elections are coming up soon enough. The Congressional cathouse will attract some new blood, then the same ol', same ol' will continue and the circle will be unbroken.

We'll need a new Congressional motto though. How do you say "Bootie for sale!" in Latin?

 

[empeake]

Isn't that a great idea? Imagine the money we'd save if we just outsourced Congress to the country with the lowest bid.

Didn't this appear once on MadTV or some other program?

 

[Mephisto]

Didn't this appear once on MadTV or some other program?

Did it? I'm glad that I'm not the only one who realizes what a sham (and willing whore) Congress really is. I don't watch MAD TV, but I'll keep an eye out for that episode.

 

[empeake]

I don't watch MAD TV, but I'll keep an eye out for that episode.

As I said, I'm not certain it was MadTV, so don't look too hard. Anyway, the skit was about outsourcing all the government to India.