Pelosi threat to sue Bush

[waste gate]

What is this? If 'I' can't legislate the issue, I'll let the courts do it for me? Wouldn't be the first time.
The courts should immediately dismiss this based on seperation of powers issues.
Write a law which will not be vetoed. Congress needs to take responsibility for their place in Arcticle One of the Constitution and the president will act based on his authority under Arcticle Two of the same Constitution. Create the law and let the consitution work!!!! Legislators need to legislate.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-threat-to-sue-bush-over-iraq-bill-2007-05-08.html

[baggygreen]

This is as bad as the bloke who sued over a pair of pants that AL put up last week.... too much money to spend.:yep:

[bradclark1]

Maybe you should read the whole article.

[NefariousKoel]

The courts are being increasingly relied on to circumvent anything.

It's the most out-of-control part of the "balance of power" when a miniscule handful of people decide what should be treated as law. Simple as that.


Note: I'll have to remember my views next time I get called up for jury duty.

[SmokinTep]

She is an idiot. They tried to do the same thing with Nixon, but failed.

[baggygreen]

it was completely read, and as best this poor uneducated mind could, understood.

I honestly dont see why you'd sue the president because he vetoed a bill. You guys have got seperartion of powers etc.... I thought that was supposed to keep the whole thing fair and even and everything??:doh: You know, to eliminate the possibility of a single man having too much power??

Theres obviously something simple im missing here tho..

[dean_acheson]

Maybe you should read the whole article.

I did, last night, before this posting and find that condensending. Maybe Nancy should try reading the Constitution.

This is simply astounding. Presdients have been using signing statements for years, and it isn't any different than Justices like Stevens and Brennan using 'legislative history' to determine intent.

So let me get this straight, some jacka@* junior staffer in the House can include language in a committee report issued with a bill and a judge using that to 'determine' what the bill means, and that is ok, but if the President attaches a statement to a bill he is signing that says 'this is my interpretation of this bill' then the house speaker can 'sue' the President? Alllrighty!

Par for the course, the left in this country often turns to the Article Three branch since they can't get their agenda through the ballot box in the Article One and Two branches. That is why you see all those harpies and ex-hippies jumping up and down at the Temple of Roe. Simply amazing. These are the same dolts who talk about being the voice of "the people."

Morons.

I hope they do sue the President. I hope they try to impeach him. I hope Obey makes the arguements on the House floor with Nancy and McDermott at his side.
What a bunch of useful idiots.

[SmokinTep]

I saw a video on the news when she met the Queen here in that states while she was here for the Jamestown thing. Not supposed to offer you hand to shake unless the Queen does so first. Well she just thrust it out there and the Queen's look was like WTF........who is this bitch.

[Sea Demon]

It's apparent that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party have no idea of how the Constitution works. This is just astounding. For all the claims of Bush "abusing" his powers, it's incredible the charges coming from the left. This is obviously a woman that doesn't understand the limits of her own powers. Nor does she understand the concept of seperation of powers.

But I have a feeling this is just another fake Republican "scandal" unfolding. :roll:

[bradclark1]

Ya'll need to read the article again and hopefully understand it instead of going on about the democratic bogey man.
And yes I'm being condesending now because people seem to have blinders on and don't want to understand what's written.

[tycho102]

The "signing statements" tell the Congress where the holes are in the law. This President does not follow the "spirit" of any laws unless it is to the benefit of his fellow corporatists. So what he's doing up to this point isn't anything illegal. Nancy would get better results calling for a gay pride parade in San Francisco.

Just a normal political power struggle. Nothing new. Someone has to be dominant -- neither side will accept anything else.

[Sea Demon]

Ya'll need to read the article again and hopefully understand it instead of going on about the democratic bogey man.
And yes I'm being condesending now because people seem to have blinders on and don't want to understand what's written.

Oh, it's been read. And understood nicely. Your condescension aside, the fact that people see things differently from you doesn't mean they don't understand. It would be easy for many here to turn around and say you yourself need to re-read the article because you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it.

[dean_acheson]

C'est vrai.

[Skybird]

I think this is the far more important signal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902461_pf.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article863277/Republikaner_drohen_Praesident_Bush_mit_Revolte.ht ml?print=yes

[bradclark1]

C'est vrai.
Vous ne savez pas vrai.

[baggygreen]

interessant..., est-ce qu'il ya quelques autres qui parles francais??

nice links sky, ta

[bradclark1]

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Is the above quote wrong? It would seem to me that if a president continually circumvents the laws as he seems fit that the only recourse is the courts. Or am I somehow wrong and if so please explain?

Now nothing has even happened yet from either end which it clearly explains but some of you guys jump on your Republican bandwagon about how evil the democrats are.

[bradclark1]

interessant..., est-ce qu'il ya quelques autres qui parles francais??


I speak Babel Fish. ;)

[baggygreen]

Is the above quote wrong? It would seem to me that if a president continually circumvents the laws as he seems fit that the only recourse is the courts. Or am I somehow wrong and if so please explain?

Now nothing has even happened yet from either end which it clearly explains but some of you guys jump on your Republican bandwagon about how evil the democrats are.I took a very brief course in the workings of the American political system - isnt that entirely his prerogative? It always seemed to me that the entire seperation of powers thing made it a very cumbersome, slow and drawn out process to get any law through... i dunno..

but im not jumping on any bandwagon - personally, im a Liberal party man - notice, difference from liberals.

[bradclark1]

Baggygreen, this is from the wiki page.

There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements to modify the meaning of laws by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association) described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law) and our constitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) system of separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers)".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements#_note-ABA_Taskforce)
George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto) although the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) already held the one line item veto bill as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements#_note-4)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikinews-logo.svg)