Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh Live Radio Thread. 05/09/07

Posted on 05/09/2007 8:41:52 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: dittos; limbaugh; rush; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-325 next last
To: RasterMaster

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


21 posted on 05/09/2007 8:56:07 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27; All

Yhello!


22 posted on 05/09/2007 8:56:48 AM PDT by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

He’s having a very very good week.


23 posted on 05/09/2007 8:57:15 AM PDT by Badeye (Some issues are more complicated than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: txradioguy

Hi bud.


24 posted on 05/09/2007 8:58:06 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

Good stuff.


25 posted on 05/09/2007 8:58:26 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27
Double edged sword for the Dems. They like to craft loosely worded legislation to give their liberal judges lots of room for interpretation when comes to court challenges. It comes back to bite them when the president is doing the interpreting.
26 posted on 05/09/2007 8:58:59 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter ( Who is the Democrat's George Galloway?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

They thought it was “cool” when Clinton did it.


27 posted on 05/09/2007 8:59:47 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Stroke of the pen, etc, etc...


28 posted on 05/09/2007 9:00:31 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter ( Who is the Democrat's George Galloway?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Did you read some of the responses to that video? Lots of love in a couple - NOT!


29 posted on 05/09/2007 9:08:26 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Guns don't kill people. None of my guns ever left the house at night and killed anyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Hiya CC, thanks for the thread. Boss’s wife is having a baby today so he’s out and I get to play.


30 posted on 05/09/2007 9:08:31 AM PDT by Fudd Fan (Armed men are citizens. Unarmed men are subjects. Gun control is about CONTROL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Hello CC


31 posted on 05/09/2007 9:08:56 AM PDT by StoneWall Brigade (we)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan

Hi dear.


32 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:06 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Hi, CC! Thanks for the thread!


33 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:07 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27
Good afternoon CC27...thank you very much for the ping...back here in work, lurk, n'lunch mode.. Good for Katie to sink See the BeeEss...How are you today?
34 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:14 AM PDT by LibertyLee (George W. Bush a Great President--US out of the UN and UN out of the US!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade

Hey hey.


35 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:22 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Morning.


36 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:42 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

How’s it going?


37 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:54 AM PDT by StoneWall Brigade (we)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LibertyLee

Hello FRiend.


38 posted on 05/09/2007 9:10:01 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

He’s making a mistake if he’s serious about doing a Couric interview. Why prop up somebody that will inevitably edit the interview to portray him in the worst possible light?


39 posted on 05/09/2007 9:10:11 AM PDT by Badeye (Some issues are more complicated than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade

Fine.


40 posted on 05/09/2007 9:10:15 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-325 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson