Posted on 05/08/2007 7:07:38 PM PDT by Jean S
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.
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.
“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”
It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”
A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.
Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. Several senators and Democratic presidential candidates recently have proposed that idea.
“There was a ripple around the room” in support of the idea, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
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.
The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.
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.
A law professor at Georgetown Law Center, Nicholas Rosenkranz, said Bush is likely to express his view on the constitutionality of the next supplemental in writing. Whether Bush has leeway to treat any provision of the supplemental as advisory, however, depends on the wording Congress chooses, Rosenkranz added.
Bruce Fein, who was a Justice Department official under President Reagan, said Democrats seeking to challenge a signing statement would have to try to give themselves standing before filing a lawsuit.
“You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate … to seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court that the president, by issuing a signing statement, is denying Congress’s obligation to [hold a veto override vote],” Fein said.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that “the odds would be good” for a signing statement on the next supplemental, considering that Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills. But Levin did not offer any clues as to how Democratic leaders would counter Bush.
This is just too much. Why can’t the Republicans point out that Republicans are fighting a real war on terror in which brave men are dying for our country while the democrat leadership play political games and now want to issue lawsuits?
People, you must understand what is going on here.
This is a HUGELY well funded and well organized bunch of left wing extremists pulling the puppet strings of the Democrats. They Have Taken Over Fund Raising. You have to understand that and WE MUST RESPOND.
The only response is we must, ourselves, contact the same vulnerable GOP and Democrat Congressmen in districts that are shaky and inform them of what sort of money can be fed to their opponent. We must fund direct mail campaigns to the districts of those alleged conservative Democrats in districts that they did not deserve to win, absent a year of scandals.
As for all of what is in the article . . . the GOP would simply filibuster any such action in the Senate and nothing would pass. So this can be put to bed. What cannot be put to bed is the fact that the puppetmasters will not allow Pelosi and the other puppets to back down. The only way to combat this is to equal their efforts in the key districts and states that they are attacking.
The GOP should have a program to do this. Absent that, all of the folks here who have been swaggering about how they won’t send money to the GOP and will only fund candidates they approve of — well, the time has arrived. Find the GOP candidates these wackos are attacking who can be persuaded to stick with the President and send them money, and tell them to stand firm.
P-athetic
E-gotistical
L-ooney
O-bnoxious
S-illy
Put them all together they spell: PELOSI!!!
I-nept
It has become Politically Correct and it is destroying our country if it hasn’t already.
The minute she files, Bush should take away her Airforce jet-—um, excuse me, reallocate Airforce assets to support the war effort.
Well ..anyone see the Republicans fighting her back ..making a serious statement against her..calling her out on her bullsh*t ? I don’t
Us screaming about it on FR wont get the job done. Why won’t ONE just ONE person who supposedly represents ME get off their ass and and go after this pig Pelosi and drag her down for breaking the law ( trying to dictate foreign policy on her own during war time ) WHY ???WHY damn it !
“The president should arrest this traitor and clamp her in irons.’
I wonder how many people would come to her defense, I’m guessing that the majority would either be from inside the Beltway or from San Francisco.
No one else would give a damn.
Because the Republicans are almost as bad as the democrats ..no balls ,,,no spines and no brains ! We’re lost !
E- evil
L- loser
O- outlandish
S- simple minded
E- evil twice as evil
R- revolting
Put them all together they spell PELOSER!!!
I’m not sending anyone a dime until I see some one with some balls go back after Pelosi and company and go after her HARD. I see NOTHING so far . They are not worth a dime , the lot of them .
If Bush is impeded from attaching signing statements - - statements which basically clarify the President’s understanding of the true scope and intent of the bill based on his discussions with lawmakers - - then he can just NOT SIGN the bill in the first place. That is, he can always veto, and that is exactly what he should do if oily scumbags like Pelosi keep mouthing off.
Well we have a Republican in the WH who is single-handedly fighting the war on terror. I do agree that the Republicans have no political balls and spine but I don't agree they are almost as bad as the dems. There is indeed a great deal of difference between a political coward and a traitor.
“A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.”
“Hang together, or we shall all hang separately.” — B Franklin
Hahahaha, hey why the heck not? While he’s at it, he could also fire off some other choice comments ;-)
Go for it. It worked for Gore when he tried suing because he didn’t like the outcome of the presidential election. This is great, I think I’ll sue the mayor because I don’t like how he vetoed the city council vote. Sakes, what is wrong with these people.
I have a feeling Pelosi is going to wakeup with a hangover tomorrow asking her handlers, “I said what?!”
Would someone mind explaining this to me?
I’ve read it a few times, and I read the Wikipedia entry on “signing statments”, but I don’t get it.
Is a “signing statement” basically a post-it note type comment from the president?
If someone could paint a picture for me...
unbelievable. Pelosi is drunk with power... talk about overreaching. you sit-at-home Conservatives that ‘punished’ the Conservative movement watch this in horror. it is your doing.
Liberals love the courts, Constitution notwithstanding. Nonetheless, Pelosi is certainly a squaw.
someone send this to Pelosi on the matter of suing a sitting President.
“Q89. “If a President has civil litigation brought against him during his term in office must this be handled while he is in office? Or, can it be deferred until his term expires?”
A. A civil case can be deferred, and before 1997, most people would likely have guessed that any civil case filed against the President would be deferred. However, a Supreme Court ruling against President Clinton in 1997 allowed a civil case against him to proceed. The reasoning was that since the case against him concerned acts committed prior to his taking office, that the Presidency did not lend him a shield against such litigation. The decision would seem to leave in place the notion that a President cannot be sued for actions taken as President, protecting Presidents from frivolous lawsuits designed to tie up an administration’s conduct of national business.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.