Skip to main content

View Diary: Endgame (356 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You misuse the word (0+ / 0-)

    "effectively" means, it would have the effect of of a veto.

    •  And it does, in practice (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, curmudgiana, JZinMa

      The job of the executive branch is to exectute the laws faithfully, is it not? A refusal to execute those laws is, in essence, a refusal to acknowledge their existence, to act as if they do not exist.

      I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      by incertus on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 08:23:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. (0+ / 0-)

        A veto means:

        • There is no law
        • There is nothing for courts to consider

        The signing statement, if acted upon, does not exempt Bush from judicial review.

        •  The Court (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marjo, bablhous, leolabeth, KOTCrum

          has no real enforcement power, and besides, Alito was the guy who was pushing for the signing statement back in the Reagan administration. You really think this Court would rule against Bush?

          I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

          by incertus on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 08:28:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The crux (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bablhous

            You hit THE point in your post about the courts having no enforcement power.  Combine this with a de facto dictatorial president and a willingly castrated, do-nothing, rubberstamp congress and we have a very big problem.

            I believe a change to the Constitution is necessary in response.  We need to take the DOJ from the Executive (the Executive has proven time and again that it CANNOT be trusted to wield the DOJ properly:  FBI spying on Americans repeatedly over modern history is just the tip).  The DOJ needs to be placed into the hands of the Judiciary OR turned into an independent branch of government that cannot be mis-wielded by a crazy President OR a looney Congress (see Terry Schiavo Debacle).

            There must be in place, at all times, a body that can and will go after any or all branches of government when they fail at their duties.  The President and all his minions whenever he orders torture or indefinite detention or domestic spying, Congresspersons when they violate ethics laws or fail to uphold the oath.

            One way or another, the President must lose control of the DOJ and the Judiciary must be given the power to nail threats to the Constitution AND the judiciary (ala GOP death threats against judges with the gall to actually do their jobs and rule independently, and regardless, of GOP points of view on various subjects).

            The Dems are not up to the job of upholding the Constitution.  The GOP doesn't even need mention given that they are actively ANTI-Constitution.  I'm willing to bet two months pay that the Dems will do SQUAT.

            Reichstag fire is to Hitler as 9/11 is to Bush

            by praedor on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 09:57:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree but here is the problem (0+ / 0-)

              Once one President has set a precedent for extended Presidential power the next President generally tends to keep it.

              We really need to stop the fear mongering about other people we share the planet with and start worrying about our environment. Lets just beat the swords into wind turbines and start thinking photovoltaics instead of particle beam weapons.

              As to the Constitution thats We the Peoples Law we use to keep the Government in check as opposed to the ordinary law they use to pick our pockets.

              Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH

              by rktect on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 04:55:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  But there will be no judicial review (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marc in KS, leolabeth, 3goldens

          unless there is a challenge, and unless the Democrats act, there will be no challenge.

    •  hmmm (9+ / 0-)

      ok.

      point taken.

      I tweaked the langauge to call it a "quasi-veto." You're correct that with this issue, we should keep the language accurate. I think "quasi-veto" describes the situation well. It's not a veto, since Congress can challenge his actions. But if the action goes unchallenged, the executive has rendered an act of Congress meaningless.

      tracking the domestic spying scandal here.

      by Georgia Logothetis on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 08:27:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The threat here (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        georgia10, barbwires, leolabeth, ER Doc

        is that the Republican Congress will not challenge him. And that's a very real threat.

        But a lot of Kossacks believe that signing statements somehow have the force of law. This is like a conspiracy thread.

        •  hehe (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leolabeth

          not everyone is as well-versed as you in signing statements :)

          I put some info on signing statements downthread as background.

          tracking the domestic spying scandal here.

          by Georgia Logothetis on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 08:32:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The are law (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous, cherryXXX69

          If the president signs his illegal and totally bogus statement, acts on them exactly as stated in the signing statement, and congress does NOTHING to stop him.  Hell, if Congress doesn't even take a look to see if he is going along with his signing statements vs the actual law, then the signing statements are statements of fact.

          It's nice to say that, technically, they are not legally binding and are not the law.  It is irrelevant if the Pres is ACTING on his signing statements and there is ZERO real opposition.  The Congress is bending over backwards to make Bushie's signing statements the law by giving him blanket cover to do whatever the hell he wants.

          Reichstag fire is to Hitler as 9/11 is to Bush

          by praedor on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 10:03:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what I find strange (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KOTCrum

            is the fact that they are using signing statements.  The Administration must be assuming that such a thing does have basis in law.  It's complete bullshit but nobody seems to want to challenge these idiots. The GOP I understand. But what the hell is wrong with the Dems.

            My point is, though, that these idiots have been ignoring the law since they got in.  Now they are just declaring that they are going to ignore the law right when it is being signed.  Must be one of their hot shot legal minds who have told them that this is a good idea.  

            •  I think they've been used a long (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mimi9

              time, but I think this administration sees them as a way to further enhance presidential power.

              These are the guys who have been moaning for decades that the president is supposed to be more powerful than he has been.

              I think they're full of shit, but as long as no one stops them, they win the argument.

              And we all go to jail...

              -9.25, -7.54

              I have little use for ponies, but much use for beers.

              by Marc in KS on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 10:30:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site