Pelosi Will Sue To Get Her Way

Loading

So much for three equal branches of Government:

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.

Nimrod Pelosi thinks she is not only a United States Ambassador who conducts foreign policy she also now believes herself to be the President of the United States.  If the real President doesn’t do what she wants she is gonna sue!

Listen, if you want to stop the war vote to pull the funding.  If you can’t do it then STFU!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The issue is a truly controversial one: whether or not the President is bound by law. Now everyone here, ask yourselves: “What would I be saying if Bill Clinton declared that such-and-such law did not apply to him?”

Just because it’s your guy doing it does not ever make it right. The law is the supreme authority in this land, never, ever, ever one man. Those who claim authority above and beyond the law make me reach for my gun (concealed carry permits – go Ohio!). I, for one, side with Tom Paine on this issue – as does Nancy Pelosi.

Doesn’t the legislative branch create the laws and the executive branch execute the laws?

Is that to simple? The President does not get to pick and choose different passages within a law bill. It is either all or nothing.

Doesn’t the legislative branch create the laws and the executive branch execute the laws?

Is that to simple? The President does not get to pick and choose different passages within a law bill. It is either all or nothing.

Doesn’t the legislative branch create the laws and the executive branch execute the laws?

Is that to simple? The President does not get to pick and choose different passages within a law bill. It is either all or nothing.

I am not sure you know what a signing statement is. If you do you better think long and hard about what the first poster is saying. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets try being American first and party second. Regardless of your approach.

Syriana Pelosi is NOT the President and the Supreme Court should intervene and remind Syriana Pelosi who the President is.

The Pelosites have some nerve wankering about the Constitution.

Let me know where the Constitution says that one political party may adopt it’s own “alternative foreign policy?”

Oh, and T.P. you might want to remind your Dem friends about that maxim. Seems to me that some of them have openly declared that they believe they are right and therefore any action they take is right.

But you go on complaining about Bush if it makes you feel better.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 05/09/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Amen MariesTwoCents. Pelosi has gone off the deep end! For more see: http://thefightinggop.org/index.php/category/pelosi/

Oh, so the signing statements issued by Clinton was ok and no big deal but since Bushitler is doing it they are now off limits? Give me a break. Here is just one example of Clinton deciding NOT to abide by legislation:

I do object to the provision in the Act concerning the transmittal of abortion-related speech and information. Current law, 18 U.S.C. 1462, prohibits transmittal of this information by certain means, and the Act would extend that law to cover transmittal by interactive computer services. The Department of Justice has advised me of its long-standing policy that this and related abortion provisions in current law are unconstitutional and will not be enforced because they violate the First Amendment. The Department has reviewed this provision of S. 652 and advises me that it provides no basis for altering that policy. Therefore, the Department will continue to decline to enforce that provision of current law, amended by this legislation, as applied to abortion-related speech.

And his administration argued vehemently FOR the signing statment:

Even though President Clinton was blessed with unified party control when he came to office, his staff in the OLC early on was busy defending unique presidential powers, particularly the signing statement. In November 1993, Walter Dellinger, who was an assistant-Attorney General in the OLC wrote a memorandum to White House Counselor Bernard Nussbaum outlining a constitutional defense for the presidential signing statement.83 The memo was in reality a defense of the constitutional signing statement and its place in legislative history.

Dellinger argued that a president was within his rights to use the constitutional signing statement to declare some provisions of a law would be unconstitutional in certain circumstances, when it would be needed to construe sections to “save” it from unconstitutionality, or when a provision is unconstitutional “on its face.”84A year later he took the opportunity to further explore the right in a memorandum to Judge Abner Mikva, a counselor to President Clinton.85 Dellinger opens with the blunt statement that one area that there does not seem to be any controversy is the area in which some circumstances warrant a president to decline to enforce unconstitutional statutes.86 Most notably in his memo to Judge Mikva, Dellinger argues that the

[P]resident has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency. Where the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it, unless he is convinced that he court would disagree with his assessment…[I]f resolution in the
courts is unlikely and the President cannot look to a judicial determination, he must shoulder the responsibility of protecting the constitutional role of the presidency.87

A look at the Clinton record of the use of the presidential signing statement shows that Clinton used the constitutional signing statement less than his predecessor (105 to 146), but still more than the Reagan administration (105 to 71).88 In using the constitutional signing statement, Clinton was similar to the Bush administration in issuing most in the area of foreign policy (52%),89 precisely where presidential power is at its zenith.90 But even where the power of the presidency is clearest, President Clinton was still willing to use the constitutional signing statement from the high profile to the mundane, often to achieve what could not be achieved after veto bargaining had taken place. And like the Bush administration, President Clinton in at least three separate instances91 asked the OLC to issue opinions either buttressing the president’s authority to decline to enforce provisions of a statute or to direct inferior officers on how to implement the terms of a constitutional signing statement, and in two additional cases, the OLC wrote highly expansive and detailed memorandum on the legal significance of the constitutionally-based signing statement.92

Pelosi can whine all she want but any suit will just make her and your party look foolish once again. Your hero used them, and Bush uses them. If you KOSkiddies want to stop the war then defund it. Simple as that.

Funny how you mock Pelosi as if she’s a child, but in doing so, you prove that you think like one. Constitutionally, suing is proper procedure.

Point of information: As used by Clinton and previous presidents on rare occasions, signing statments were added to legislation the president thought would not pass muster with the courts. They were not attempts to nullify the power of the legislature. Bush’s doctrine about signing statements is quite different both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Although I doubt that Bush himself is very aware of the philosophical issues involved, the practice, in the form he employs it, reflects the belief of many of his supporters that the best form of government is a presidential dictatorship where election renders the leader superior to law and the government is simply the executive arm of the dominant political party. You can read all about it in the writings of Carl Schmitt, the German legal scholar who, far more than Leo Strauss, is the theoretician of the more thoughtful members of the hard right.

Let Syriana Pelosi take The President to Court.

Congress only has the authority to fund the war or not.

If Syriana Pelosi want’s to take the President to Court she will get overridden because the President is the Commander-In-Cheif of the Armed Forces and she cannot force the President to accept thier bill.

The President can Veto Veto Veto away until he get’s the bill HE “THE PRESIDENT” wants!!

Actually this is a fight I would LOVE to see.

Bring it on!!!

Doesn’t the legislative branch create the laws and the executive branch execute the laws?

Yes, but the Constitution is so quaint and pre-9/11.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Per the article above, 750 signing statements since he took office and yes to answer the query above I do hold all parties to the same standard. And they all fail within three years.
The real problem is indeed a constitutional one. Country before party. America first!

Doesn’t the legislative branch create the laws and the executive branch execute the laws?

Yes, but the Constitution is so quaint and pre-9/11.

Do you think that the President should be able to make his own laws, and reinterpret laws however he wants, via signing statements? Yes or no.

If the answer is no, and the President is *trying* to make his own laws, what should Congress do about it?

According to the Constitution, the 3 branches of government are balanced against each other; the judicial branch is the tie-breaker. Therefore, Congress is legally bound to go to the courts.

So what’s your problem, exactly?

It seems like you’re upset that Congress isn’t doing what the President wants, just because the President wants to do it. I remind you that this is the structure of our democracy, as put in place by the Founding Fathers.

Yeah Pelosi thinks she’s an ambassador and the elected president… and so does George W. Bush.

By the way Pelosi was not alone on her trip to Syria. See if you can name her republican counterparts!

Not one of the Republicans that went along on Syriana’s trip tried to speak for the President or set new Policy.

But Syriana Pelosi did.

Syriana Pelosi is NOT the Secretary of State, nor the President, she should stick to squaking and bitching in the House of Reps and leave handling the President’s policy to HIS administration!

Folks, please. Instead of us arguing about the past use of signing statements, why not simply disavow them? A passed bill is a passed bill. Nobody should be able to ‘massage’ what the bill is intended to do. Certainly many past presidents issued rather small and innocuous statements about how a law was to be implemented or administered, but never to the degree the current president uses them. He sees the signing statement as HIS order to congress. he doesn’t see it as ‘clarifying’ or ‘implementing’ idea. He is king of the monarchy (because the right is scared and weak)and he’ll do just what he wants – as long as we allow him to. Are we tired of living in a monarchy or what?

Not one of the Republicans that went along on Syriana’s trip tried to speak for the President or set new Policy.

But Syriana Pelosi did.

Syriana Pelosi is NOT the Secretary of State, nor the President, she should stick to squaking and bitching in the House of Reps and leave handling the President’s policy to HIS administration!

Posted by Posted by MariesTwoCents

Marie needs to stay out of the sun. She is shrill. Dear lady, according to EVERYBODY who actually attended those meetings, Ms Pelosi did not try to speak for the president. She was not griping about Bush or anybody. All attendees said in many occasions that nobody insulted the administration or its actions. For you to continue to lie about Ms. Pelosi’s intentions is shamefull. Can you not do justice to your chosen monarch by speaking truthfully? Do you have to lie to keep clothes on Mr Bush? How much cover do you have to provide for him. He is an adult, you know. Well, he is old anyway – maybe not an adult. Ma’am you are moving a republican lie which has been debunked by everybody. Don’t you sorta feel foolish? You should.

Boy you guy’s just dont get it.

The President is NEVER going to sign a bill with a timeline for withdrawl letting the enemy know when we are leaving.

If presented with a quality bill with no surrender date Al-Queada can sink thier teeth into, and NO Peanut Storage involved I’m sure he will sign the damn thing!

Every day this goes on the Troops are depleted of resourses they need NOW to finish thier job.

The Democrats are doing NOTHING for the Troops except holding up Thier progress.

If Roosevelt could see this madness he would wonder what the hell happened to what once was non-defeatest party!

But the party of Roosevelt is gone forever and George Soros is now in charge.

Tom,

Do you get all your talking points from Huffpo and Kos?

Let me know where the Constitution says that one political party may adopt it’s own “alternative foreign policy?”

Probably in the same place it says that the President is the sole seat of foreign policy, which is to say no where. Rather, the President’s power to make policy is one of those penumbras that emanate from the Constitution.

Tom,

Do you get all your talking points from Huffpo and Kos?

Posted by Posted by MariesTwoCents

So is has come to this: Facts are ‘talking points’ to the last throes 28%er’s huh? That’s all you got? I mean, really? You spew untruthful words, and thoughtful people are supposed to let you get away with it? No way…Your reverence for the spoiled little man has taken YOUR once beloved country and turned it into a banana republic. We have invested brave men & women’s lives, treasure, and countless opportunities to unite the planet to fight with us. now the world sees the US as an agitator. If you simply stated the truth – by using multiple information sources – you will be fine. By you selling snake oil to thoughtful people (people who know the truth) you appear foolish. You really don’t want to appear foolish on a public blog, do you? Well, maybe too late. Anyway my suggestion is to go where dictators are wanted – and take W with you. He might need a highchair though – I hope you have one because i gave mine to shooter cheney.

Tom,

I would truly like to know where you are getting your sources as to the “actual transcript” of Pelosi’s visit with the Syrian dictator! After she went, I googled it and even google was stumped…as were some well-known publications.

I think the point MarieTwoCents is trying to make is that regardless of any Republican or Democratic Congressmen going to Syria, none are third in line to the presidency! A fact that I truly think has gone to Pelosi’s head…

Surely, Tom, you don’t think Pelosi’s position was lost on the Middle East, do you? If so, I could point you to some publications who differ.

No, not proper constitutional procedure at all.

You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate seeking 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.

There is not one gutless Democrat legislator who would do this considering the failed history of such an endeavor:

Back in the 70’s, 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.

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.

Presidential signing statements are not only a perfectly acceptable and constitutional means for a president to express his reservations about particular provisions in bills he signs, they are also perfectly acceptable and constitutional means for a president to, “guide and direct Executive officials in interpreting or administering a statute. – Nov 1993 The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements

Nothing will stop Madam Pelosi from applying her world class oral skills to brings this to life (so to speak). Fortunately, Americans are beginning to understand that the Democrats are interested in anything but the best interests of the troops. Do your worst, Madame, when our President ignores ignores them, he will have not only the Constitution on his side, he will have the American people too.

08 is fast approaching and displays like this make the chances of a Dem win even more remote. Who said the Madame didn’t have talent?
—————————————–
Constitutionally, suing is proper procedure.

The article at Boston.com that “Thomas Paine in the neck” cites 5-9-07/10:57am is dated 4-30-06, or last year…before the Democrats took control. Indicative of the fact that the President’s signing statements are non-party-driven.

Tom,

Where are good liberals dead?

In the heart or in the head?

Margaret Mead wisely observed: Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead would be proud to be part of the so-called 28%ers.

You must get nose bleeds from standing too long on your soapbox without one meaningful thought communicated.

Liberal cowards such as the salon crowd and Tom are convinced that they can undermine the decision to support the liberation of Iraq that was made on the basis of rational thought, logical argument and over a decade of documentation by bleating,“Bush lied!” Unfortunately for them, when asked for some rational basis for that claim, and there isn’t one. Either that, or they scream, “run away!” because people actually die when fighting brutal, vicious terrorists. Of course, I can name several thousand who died while not fighting terrorists, but minding their own businesses one fine fall morning.

Does the world believe us to be agitators? When our Liberals tell us that all Europeans ( i.e the world) hate us, I have to wonder whether they simply hate watching Americans bashing their own country in order to curry favor with foreigners. I met europeans, however, who seemed eager to learn about and even come to America, especially after my setting the record straight on all too many issues upon which they’ve been misled. In my extensive travels, I typically encounter Bush bashing from my fellow American expats rather than from Europeans themselves.

As for the liberation of Iraq and one less dictator alive in this world….good news from Iraq is the last thing Democrats want to hear. The death of every terrorist is a blow to their quagmire dreams. When victory becomes obvious in Iraq, the Dems will claim that it was themselves that pushed the winning strategy through and it was the Republicans that were clamoring for surrender. What kind of people argue against freeing people from brutal oppression? At one time, it was believed by some that Liberals actually stood for freedom from oppression, but their support for Communism and totalitarian dictatorships has finally uncovered the lie. It must have been the overconsumption of their home brewed snake oil…

Want to apologize for the wackiness of the site today. As soon as Salon linked to this post this morning we were hit by a DoS attack via comment spam. My server guy who just eats this stuff up was able to hold it off for most of the day with hiccups. Those hiccups resulted in the error messages and the multiple comments since they timed out. I’ve removed the multiple posts and everything should be getting back to normal.

Now, onto the regularly scheduled leftist delusions.

What all you lefties fail to understand, and as Skye pointed out, signing statements have been used for many many years and perfectly legal recourse for a President. As I pointed out earlier, Clinton argued vehemently FOR the use of signing statements. But there was no outcry from you lefties then right?

Hypocrites, one and all.

To Tom and all Salon visitors to this blog:

Happy Saddam-Free 2007!

How about the same day that PeeeeLoshi files the lawsuit the Justice Department has her arrested for treason. I’m sure they already have am airtight case built and on hold. It would be hard for her to say ‘I didn’t do it’.

Tom wrote:

He is king of the monarchy (because the right is scared and weak)and he’ll do just what he wants – as long as we allow him to. Are we tired of living in a monarchy or what?

Relax with the hyperboles, junior! It damages any shred of credibility I might have spared you. ’08 Elections are right around the corner. Methinks King George will be relinquishing his crown by ’09.

CJ at A Soldier’s Perspective weighs in after listing the number of signing statements past Presidents have made:

I’m not exactly sure what Pelosi can “take him to court” over if he uses a signing statement. I find it interesting that she says, “The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching.” Can you show me where he is any more excessive than any other president? And what is excessive in Mrs. Pelosi’s eyes?

Thomas Paine: You might want to be careful using the phrase “America First.”

It’s association with American Nazis in the previous century are rather unpleasant.

The point of the article I posted was to indicate the vast number of signing statements the president has used. Not to indicate partisanship. Regardless of party it should be of concern that this White House continually consolidates power. As one of the first posters noted a Democrat has a good chance of taking the presidency in 08 and how will you feel then? The power and the precedent will be established if it is not fully challenged now. We are directly represented by Congress and the Senate and they must react to their constituencies accordingly. The president is not so directly tied to fluctuations of the election cycle. Thusly he is less responsive for good or bad to our wishes. That the current CIC reflects the views of the posters here is very shortsighted. As Mitch Mcconnell noted in an interview earlier this year you need to watch your hubris since you meet the same people on your way up as you do on your way down.
Thanks for the historical correction on the America first thing. My intentions were good. Country before party

Curt,

I thought it was my browser lol

My posts wouldnt go through eventually at all and I gave up.

Then I went and cleaned, defragged, dumped cookies, etc,..

Oh well my comp needed it 🙂

Tom,

Marie needs to stay out of the sun. She is shrill. Dear lady, according to EVERYBODY who actually attended those meetings, Ms Pelosi did not try to speak for the president. She was not griping about Bush or anybody. All attendees said in many occasions that nobody insulted the administration or its actions. For you to continue to lie about Ms. Pelosi’s intentions is shamefull. Can you not do justice to your chosen monarch by speaking truthfully? Do you have to lie to keep clothes on Mr Bush? How much cover do you have to provide for him. He is an adult, you know. Well, he is old anyway – maybe not an adult. Ma’am you are moving a republican lie which has been debunked by everybody. Don’t you sorta feel foolish? You

Might I remind you even the New York Times, The Washington Post, and other news outlets (Not Conservative Friendly) all BLASTED Pelosi’s visit!!

LIE ABOUT SYRIANA’S INTENTIONS? Are you friggen serious?

I dont have to lie, there she sat with the head of a State Sponsor Of Terrorism right there in Syria for all the world and cameras to see. WE DONT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!!!

That action in and of itself was an insult to the American people and our President!!

She went to Syria spoke with the head terrorist, flubbed up a message supposedly sent from Israel, and tried to negotiate policy with a state sponsor of terror Assad!!

Pissed off the President, Israel, and the American people.

Debunk that DUMBASS!!

Maybe YOU need Medication!!

Your precious Syriana Pelosi is a joke, and an embarrassment to the American people.

Nope, you’re wrong.

Congress can file suit to the Supreme Court stating a direct violation of the separation of powers (i.e. – completely disregarding congressional legistlation and oversight). Simple as that.

Signing statements, in the past, were used by the Executive as a CYA move. Nixon, and now Bush, have used this “move” in an effort to create a unitary executive.

Your link to the DoJ doesn’t work. If you want to find something to support you’re argument, you really shouldn’t use a branch of the Executive as a source.

Good day!
VC

Tom,

I missed this part earlier:

Dear lady, according to EVERYBODY who actually attended those meetings, Ms Pelosi did not try to speak for the president…For you to continue to lie about Ms. Pelosi’s intentions is shamefull. Can you not do justice to your chosen monarch by speaking truthfully?

But I do recall you asking for factual support, so how’s this from the San Francisco Chronical on 4-3-07?

“‘This is a big deal,’ said Charles Kupchan, a former official with President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council. ‘This is the Democrats pushing back against the White House, and I think it’s just the tip of the iceberg.’ Besides exploring the possibility of engagement with Syria, he said, Pelosi ‘to some extent is undermining President Bush’s monopoly over the conduct of foreign policy.'”

“Rep. Tom Lantos…chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee who is accompanying Pelosi…said during the group’s visit to Israel on Sunday, ‘We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy…'”

Can you say (with a straight face) that Pelosi was not trying to advance that “alternative Democratic foreign policy?”

Please don’t call people liars (especially when you don’t have your facts), it just isn’t nice.

“Rep. Tom Lantos…chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee who is accompanying Pelosi…said during the group’s visit to Israel on Sunday, ‘We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy…'”

Lantos is a Republican. Why would he characterize a bipartisan effort as “Democratic”?

Lantos is a Republican. Why would he characterize a bipartisan effort as “Democratic”?

According to the news article, his website, congress and google, Lantos is a Democrat.

Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/03/MNGTFP0JOK1.DTL

Lantos is a Republican? Now I have heard it all

http://lantos.house.gov/hor/ca12/

This guy is as Liberal as it get’s.

Give it up pal.

You are as incompetant as Syriana Pelosi.

That the current CIC reflects the views of the posters here is very shortsighted.

I don’t quite get your charge of “country before party”, Tom. I mean, I understand what you’re trying to say; it’s just that you assume we’re putting party interests ahead of the interests of our country. I could just as well assume the same about you. Put your country before party.

The Democratic Party does not represent, for myself, what is in my country’s best interests. By working within the Republican Party, the party that best expresses and represents my values and politics, Political Party and Country interests are one and the same.

The point of the article I posted was to indicate the vast number of signing statements the president has used. Not to indicate partisanship.

President Clinton signed 108 during his 8 year tenure. Is that excessive or not, as well? What is an “acceptable amount”, exactly, if you deem this a “vast number”?

Congress can also indict a ham sandwich, does not make it successful or right. Please provide the the statute proving your statement.

You seem to have forgotten to source this statement with fact.


Congress can file suit to the Supreme Court stating a direct violation of the separation of powers

You failed to mention Clinton. As I have previously mentioned, the 1993 memorandum on the legal significance of presidential signing statements clearly defines the signing statements as consistent with the views of the framers of the constitution. This memorandum was written on behest of the former president, Mr. Clinton.

Please read this memorandum before making another misguided statement.

—————————————————-
Signing statements, in the past, were used by the Executive as a CYA move. Nixon, and now Bush, have used this “move” in an effort to create a unitary executive.

Can’t get the President to agree with you the old-fashioned way?

Then sue him:
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…