To: milwguy
It depends on whether the bill actually requires the funding of abortions. I haven't seen the language myself, but if the Democrats can't agree amongst themselves on what it says, then it must be at least somewhat ambiguous.
If the bill requires federal funding of abortions, as the Stupak group seems to fear, then the President has no authority to issue an executive order against funding abortions. The Steel Seizure Case is pretty clear on that. It would also probably violate the Supreme Court's holding in Clinton v. New York, since it would effectively amount to an unconstitutional line-item veto.
To: The Pack Knight
Is there a difference between ‘requires’ and ‘provides for’? That’s the language I’ve been hearing used.
51 posted on
03/20/2010 5:57:42 PM PDT by
Track9
(A good education is knowing what truly sets you free.. and then crushing liberals with it)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson