May 9, 2007

Dems Threaten to Sue Bush - for Signing a Bill

Hatched by Dafydd

Has Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 95%) been inhaling a bit too much of her district's principal export?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill [where "compromise" means between different factions of the majority party].

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

All right, show of hands everyone who knows what a "signing statement" is...

When the president signs a bill duly enacted by Congress, it becomes law; but the president -- the Executive -- is the person tasked with the enforcement and execution of such laws. He is also assigned the duty to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It's right there in the oath he takes on January 20th of the year following his election.

Sometimes the two duties conflict; in that case, the Constitution must win. But suppose the vast majority of a bill is fine, but one small segment of it appears, from the president's perspective, to be unconstitutional. He could veto the entire legislation; but the other provisions may be urgently needed (such as funding our troops in the field during wartime).

Thus, he may sign the bill -- but issue a signing statement laying out his reasoning why the one provision is unconstitutional.

The signing statement simply announces what (and what not) the president understands the new law to entail... and in particular, makes note of elements that the Executive -- a coequal branch with the Legislative -- believes violate the Constitution he is sworn to protect and defend. He puts Congress and the Court on notice that the Executive will not enforce those provisions it deems unconstitutional (indeed, it cannot), until and unless the Court specifically holds that they are constitutional.

(A similar situation could arise if an outgoing president signs an unconstitutional bill; the incoming president would have to refuse to enforce it, or else he would be in violation of his oath of office.)

There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about appending a signing statement to a bill when signing it. If the Court agrees with the president about some unconstitutional aspect of the bill, the signing statement has no effect; but on the other hand, if the Court decides instead in favor of Congress's interpretation... why, in that case, the signing statement has no effect!

A court could take the reasoning in the signing statement into effect during judicial proceedings, but it's not obliged to; it could just ignore the signing statement and proceed as it pleases.

Yet evidently, the Democrats who run Congress (for the moment) believe that the president is an adjunct position, like a legislative analyst, whose duty is simply to rubberstamp whatever the People's House enacts... and that President Bush had better oughta keep his nose out of the People's business. I mean, who the heck elected him?

But this is utter madness; the courts have never gone along with Congress's repeated attempts to leash the president:

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.

In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law....

Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.

Starting in 2000, when losing presidential candidate and sitting Vice President Al Gore tried to sue his way into the White House, the Democrats have been seduced by the nigh-erotic fantasy of using the courts to cripple the Executive branch of federal government, both as Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief. Now they appear willing to drop the last shoe... a lawsuit to declare once and for all that the presidency is the only branch of government that has no plenary power whatsoever to decide constitutionality; that he must accept, perforce, any interpretation Congress hands him.

What next? Will Nancy Pelosi threaten to sue Bush tomorrow for vetoing the next surrender bill?

If this is the level of congressional overreaching just four months after the Democrats take over, I cannot even begin to imagine how far they'll have jumped the shark by November 2008.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 9, 2007, at the time of 5:50 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2059

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

When the Dems won the 06 election for congress I thought it would take a long time for the Repubs to win it back. Now I'm not so sure. If the Dems keep over-reaching like they are, and if the Repubs would then campaign on it, the Dems control of congress could be very short. However I'm not going to hold my breath because I'm not at all sure that the Repubs have got enough brains to take advantage of what the misguided efforts of Pelosi and company are handing them. Had they proven they had any intelligence they would not be in this position to start with. To be very honest, I don't think either party fit to rule.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 6:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

the presidency is the only branch of government that has no plenary power whatsoever to decide constitutionality

Don't you realize the coronation of Queen Pelosi has taken place?

All Hail to the Queen!

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 12:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

If the media was treating nancy the way they treated Newt, she would be packing to leave town about now. Pelosi is easily the worst and least effective Speaker ever. Between finding out she used her position to direct federal monies to her own family's financial interests, to her covering for Jefferson of NO, to her completely inffectual 100 hours, to her lack of any legislative productivity at all, she is a corrupt waste of American's time.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 3:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Excellent, Dafydd. I just added a link to my 2007.05.09 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 9:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Excellent, Dafydd. I just added a link to my 2007.05.09 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 9:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

Wow!

This is by far one of the best articles I have read in a long time. It's masterful, even compared to your normal high standards.

Clarity of thought is so mentally refreshing.

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 10, 2007 8:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

Oh, you might be interrested in this article, btw.

I was much more able to appreciate your piece after having read it.

I have to acknowledge that I got it from here. It's surprising how easily we are lead astry by simplistic platitudes when we are ignorant of the details.

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 10, 2007 8:24 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved