Skip to main content

View Diary: Endgame (356 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I entirely agree (0+ / 0-)

    The idea Alito puts forward is that a signing statement is like an exception to a provision of a contract.

    Congress could initial it, or accept an ammendment to the bill from a Republican that contains the language of the president or just treat the bill as not having passed.

    There are many things that could be done with it. Congress could take it back and make its own ammendment, but the signing statement itself has no validity until all the aprties reach a meeting of the minds. Thats basic contract law.

    In effect the President has said we don't have a meeting of the minds, I don't agree. What I am signing amounts to a pocket veto.

    What Congress should do is either override the veto or treat the law as if it had not been passed.

    I would choose the later course. Then the president gets nothing.

    Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH

    by rktect on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 02:20:45 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  If these statements have no legal standing, (0+ / 0-)

      then how can Congress react to them?

      Bush has a mechanism to convey his reaction to a law passed by Congress. It's called a veto. THAT'S the provision he can use under the law.

      The signing statements have no standing as to the validity or invalidity of a piece of legislation. To treat a statement AS IF it does, gives it weight it should never have.

      "We have to address the fact that the president has broken the law." -- Senator Russ Feingold.

      by bablhous on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 03:05:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its correct they have no legal standing (0+ / 0-)

        but that no legal standing leaves the bill unperfected, in effect unsigned.

        Congress can react to them by treating them as a pocket veto and passing the bill over the veto.

        Take the case of a budget bill. Both sides want some parts of it passed and some parts not passed.

        Democrats want Health and Human Services funded but, one would hope, are not voting to waste more money on Defense spending and pork which this year necessitated 14,000 some odd earmarks to restore funding to community health centers primary care services and other necessary services stripped away by Republicans who want bridges to nowhere.

        Republicans want the military industrial complex to maintain full employment so to them its been important to pretend that we need to maintain a standing army at WWII levels for sixty years and arm it with cold war style particle beams and AI drones to fight men armed with box cutters and zodiacs and the women and children living in isolated villages in Pakistan that we blow up because we are reduced to depending on blowing up shit as our foreign policy..

        Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH

        by rktect on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 03:43:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site