Author Topic: Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush (Read 939 times)

Yeager · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2006, 01:24:28 PM »

Im waiting for Bush to declare the constitution unconstitutional

teh bastidge

Tarmac · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2006, 01:24:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CavemanJ
How are they a "de facto line-item veto" if this holds:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.

It doesn't matter if federal courts consider signing statements if the issue is never brought before a federal court, or it takes years for them to hear it.

And of course it's a de facto line-item veto if the executive can say "I'm only going to follow the part of this law that I like." There is no legal standing say that, but until the courts make that clear (as they hopefully will as a result of this challenge) we're stuck with an executive branch that can say "I don't feel like following the law."

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2006, 02:06:24 PM »

Not sure I get it... if the statements have no legal weight then what is all the big deal about?

Oh wait.... it is because they have to be challenged in court? well..... what difference does that make either? Since.... he could write nothing and still interpret laws as he saw fit and no one could do a damn thing till it went to court anyway.

He is gonna interpret it any way he wants.... sighning statements or not.

Line item veto is an entirely different thing and much needed in my opinion....

lazs

Tarmac · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2006, 02:13:18 PM »

That's a good point, Lazs; the problem with the signing statements is not that they're being used to declare the executive's intention not to follow the law... the problem is that the executive is not following the law as passed by Congress.

The president can declare that the moon is going to turn blue if he wants, but when he doesn't follow the law there is a serious problem.

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2006, 02:17:22 PM »

he could also sign a bill that said the moon was green and not say a thing but act as if it were blue and nothing could be done to him till someone sued him.

He is either acting legaly or he is not. a signing statement is at.... the very least..... a statement of intent. This seems far more honest and moral than the first instance on the moon.

I would of course prefer a line item veto.

lazs

lukster · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2006, 05:36:41 PM »

I'm afraid of line item vetos unless it goes back to congress for approval.

Maverick · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:19:52 PM »

I would think that by definition a veto, be it line item or whole bill, would go back to Congress. They can then fret, fume and do something about it if they want.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2006, 08:44:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Specter is always doing stuff like this. By the time something happens (if it happens) it's altered so much as to be completely different, or else it doesn't get out of committee.... or something else which apeases the very thing he says he's trying to go after. It's just the appearance of doing something.

Nash is half right. Specter is always pulling stupid bellybutton stunts. However, it is not just the appearence of doing something. The guy is actually a retard.

After this one, Specter's out. And that's a good thing because he's almost as liberal as John McCain.

lukster · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:12:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
I would think that by definition a veto, be it line item or whole bill, would go back to Congress. They can then fret, fume and do something about it if they want.

Certainly a vetoed bill is returned to congress where they can rewrite or trash it. No doubt the president will tell them what he doesn't like about it. A line item veto seems to imply to me something different than what we already have and I suspect it means he can pass what he wants in the bill while rejecting the rest. I think that's a bad idea because bills are often the result of compromise. To let the president filter what he wants would undermine the previous process and give him too much power imo.

Meatwad · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:16:07 PM »

Isnt Specter a person/organization from one of the original James Bond movies intent on taking over the world?

Toad · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:18:36 PM »

Line item veto could be misused, without doubt.

OTOH, it could be used to stop asinine legislation like this:

A bridge to nowhere

Quote

...The 20-mile-long island, home to fewer than 50 people, has no stores, no restaurants and no paved roads. An airport on the island hosts fewer than 10 commercial flights a day.

"I can take off from the homestead and walk the beach for several miles before I get to any other habitation," says Sallee, a fisherman who also operates a small lumber mill. "There's two main mountain ranges on the island and a big valley of forest and muskeg."

Yet due to funds in a new transportation bill, which President Bush is scheduled to sign Wednesday, Sallee and his neighbors may soon receive a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and 80 feet taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. With a $223 million check from the federal government, the bridge will connect Gravina to the bustling Alaskan metropolis of Ketchikan, pop. 8,000....

...Included in the bill's special Alaska projects is $231 million for a bridge that will connect Anchorage to Port MacKenzie, a rural area that has exactly one resident, north of the town of Knik, pop. 22.

Maverick · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:25:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Certainly a vetoed bill is returned to congress where they can rewrite or trash it. No doubt the president will tell them what he doesn't like about it. A line item veto seems to imply to me something different than what we already have and I suspect it means he can pass what he wants in the bill while rejecting the rest. I think that's a bad idea because bills are often the result of compromise. To let the president filter what he wants would undermine the previous process and give him too much power imo.

A line item veto would mean that the added trash or pork on a bill that some one in Congress added to the original law could be dropped without having to trash the entire law like the system is now. In practice, more good law could be accomplished and less pork that someone added as a requirement to gain their vote to get the law passed.

midnight Target · « **Reply #27 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:27:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
but it's kinda like being pregnant. I don't like the process.

ummmm... I've always felt differently about that particular process, at least my contribution to it.

lukster · « **Reply #28 on:** July 25, 2006, 10:42:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
ummmm... I've always felt differently about that particular process, at least my contribution to it.

Nash · « **Reply #29 on:** July 26, 2006, 01:13:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Nash is half right. Specter is always pulling stupid bellybutton stunts. However, it is not just the appearence of doing something. The guy is actually a retard.

After this one, Specter's out. And that's a good thing because he's almost as liberal as John McCain.

Meanwhile...... no check, no balance.