So what happens next week when Bush uses his veto powers again? - Page 3

Psh. You just don't get it, you fucking fascist douche. He can't not see what he hasn't refrained from failing to do in an incorrect fashion!

Who the hell in this thread fucked T.V. Dinner's mom ?

Cobretti ? L.D. ?

I don't know about Cobretti or LD, but in my defense, I thought she was a dude.

Nah, I had just spent my last 5 bucks on a Slurpee instead.

Seabass, here's how I think it'd play out if Congress used the War Powers Act:

The President would defy Congress, asserting that the Act is unconstitutional and, therefore, not binding. The matter would go to the Supreme Court.

I suspect that the Court would side with the President , but I wouldn't bet real money on it. I don't know enough about the law to have a strong opinion one way or the other.

That's ridiculous. Not your idea, I find that highly plausible. Bush's desire to be King in all but name is what's ridiculous. It's odd that an Act that's been in power for 35 years or so would be challenged on its constitutionality now. Wouldn't that have all been worked out when it was signed into law in the first place?

I'm hoping for a signing statement, myself. Then Congress can take THAT to court and it can be decided (but not by the Decider) whether or not signing statements to the effect of "I'm not going to obey this law" are Constitutional or not.

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a given law unless someone brings a case challenging said constitutionality. The Bush Administration has taken careful steps to avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of the Act since it came in to office. It didn't want to create a precedent because, I imagine, it saw the potential for the very Court case we're currently discussing.

I'm with you on this one. I think that signing statements are clearly unconstitutional. Either you've decided to sign the bill into a law or you haven't - you don't get to pick and choose.

So they won't challenge it in court, but they won't obey it either?

That would be nice. Even a competent, decent man who doesn't want to endorse kidnaping and torture shouldn't have that sort of power in the U.S. government.

There are also fairly restrictive rules about who can bring such a case and when. For example, you can't challenge a law as a general taxpayer; you have to be individually harmed by it in some specific way. Even though it's what its best known for, the Supreme Court tries to avoid reviewing the constitutionality of the federal laws. The reasoning for doing so basically reduces to the idea that its undemocratic for the acts of popularly-elected officials to be regularly overridden by a small group of appointees with lifetime terms, and that the more you do it, the closer you get to having the judicial branch usurping legislative functions.

Related goodness:

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6496102&nav=3YeX

This brings up an interesting conundrum: what happens when the dummy government start behaving like a real government and asks the occupying force to leave? Is there any precedent for a situation like that?

Iraq becomes ridiculously popular with the American people?

You leave.

The Philippines comes to mind.

Update: I tried some Lagavulin tonight.

Oh, my God. It's like sex in a glass. Thanks for the tip, Seabass!

The Supreme Court are smart people - only the EXECUTIVE branch should be able to usurp legislative functions.

I keep an empty around just for the smell.

Which vintage? The 16?

Curses. When I ordered from the bartender, I didn't know there was more than one.

Quick comment on this sub-thread...

Alito was nominated for the SCOTUS because during his tenure at the DOJ he wrote memos supporting the unitary executive theory. So if the signing statements do go to the SCOTUS, Scalia and Kennedy will have to side with Souter, etc for the practice to be eliminated. Roberts could surprise me, but I doubt it.

The War powers act might be a different kettle of fish. It's very clear in the Constitution who has the war powers, and the C-in-C role is not a clear exemption, or, using O'Conner's words, a "blank check" to do whatever the President wants. He still has to listen to Congress.

Scalia would, again, be the swing vote here. In order to declare it unconstitutional, the SCOTUS would have to usurp the legislative branch, which Scalia and others have declared some reticence in doing. I could see a 6-3 decision for constitutionality. But yeah, someone's going to have to assert it first, which doesn't look likely...

I think the 16 is the most common. Did it smell like campfire?

Try the cask strength 12 years.

I go for more full-bodied stuff, but I'll bring it up with my advisor. Yes, I have an advisor. I drive across the city to cash in on his sage advice and employee discount.

Hmm, it was more leathery than that. And silky smooth.

Whatever it was, I'm glad you liked it. For an equally nice scotch with a completely different character, try the Tullabardine 1988.

There's a lot of precedent for allowing presidential signing statements. On the plus side, there is no precedent for using the signing statement as a way of ignoring central portions of legislation. Would this Supreme Court recognize the distinction in order to do it's part in restoring the Office of the President? Its possible but fucking doubtful. Executive privilege under Bush/Cheney is more like executive edict.

Just how deep in a given president's pocket is the Supreme Court, as a rule? Or is that a naive question to ask during the Bush Administration?

They don't always rule in favor of the administration, but who knows how they stand on executive privilege? This seems like a good case for the use of judicial activism. Narrowly defined and resolute.

Now let's impeach their whole family!

I'm not an expert on the theory of the Unitary Executive, but from what I understand, it seems like the one particular political theory you could say with certainty that the Founding Fathers would outright despise.

Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline

WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to
President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an
Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party's rank and file later in the day.

Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.

Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose.

Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush's desk by week's end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.

Bush vetoed one bill this spring after Democrats included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Republicans in the House upheld his rejection of the measure.

The House then passed legislation to provide war funds in two 60-day installments. Bush threatened a veto, and the measure was sidetracked in the Senate in favor of a non-controversial bill that merely pledged to give the troops the resources they need.

That set the stage for the current House-Senate negotiations on a measure to send to Bush.

The Democrats' attempt to draft war funding legislation occurred after an inconclusive meeting on Friday involving White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress.

Democrats criticized the administration for rejecting calls for a troop withdrawal timetable even if Bush has the power to waive it.

For his part, Bolten criticized Democrats for persisting with an approach that had already sparked one veto. He noted the president had already said he was willing to consider legislation that included so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

Both the House and Senate have approved legislation raising the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour in three separate 70-cent increases over 26 months. The measures both included modest tax breaks, mainly aimed at helping businesses that hire low-skilled or handicapped workers.

White House officials have said Bush is amenable to accepting an increase in the minimum wage, although they and key GOP lawmakers favor larger tax cuts to accompany the measure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq

I blame the Bush-enabling Republican scum in the senate. Without them, Bush's threats to veto could be ignored. But for them, this war would be over in a matter of months. Any deaths after next September are the fault of Bush-enabling Republican scum.