Surrender, Or We'll Sue You Where You Stand

Jules has a quick, fun bit on the Pelosi threat of legal action against Bush re a time line for quitting the Iraq War. I also especially like this from one of two links by Instapundit here.

According to Kid Oakland? Kid Oakland??

As in, Breaking news from Kid Oakland?

Are these people serious?

Actually what concerns me most is the declining level of civics education in America. I worry that not enough people understand the desired intent of the founders when it comes to the balance of powers between the branches and how even perceived local votes for one's Congressional Representative ultimately impact the judiciary, as much a part of branch interplay these days, as an arbiter of it.

Plenty blogging via Memeorandum

Comments

[southdakotaboy]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it say somewhere in the Constitution (Article II Section III) that he has the power to adjourn Congress to and I quote "such time as he shall think proper". I would love to see two things 1. Bush doing this and 2. the look on Nacey's Face when he did.

[James]

Presidents have no powers over Congress. Congress, on the other hand, has power over the president by "Power of the Purse."

Congress is the branch of government that makes and unmakes things. The executive branch has no power to even create anything in government.

If Congress actually got it's act together that one branch could bring the president down with ease.

On the signing statement's, they are unconstitutional. The Constitution gives no power to anyone on signing statements. That is a lawless invention starting with president Washington. They should have been challenged on day one.

On Iraq, the real timetable is the end of Bush's term. The next president will pull the troops out.

No other president wants to keep going the mess Bush has created.

[Dan Riehl]

No other president

SUre, Moron - every Repub candidate does. It's only the spineless Dems who won't - but then, they wouldn't really support any war, so big deal.

[southdakotaboy]

Nope sorry James went back and double checked it. Its written right there in black and white that the President has the power to adjourn Congress as he sees fit. Granted I don't think its ever been done before in any way, but it is there and it is Article II Section III.

[seekeronos]

Article II, Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He (the President) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

[southdakotaboy]

I wonder what Nacy would do if Bush went and just told them they were adjourned until further notice. It would set up some interesting questions wouldn't it. I mean what if the refuse to pass the funding bill and he just tells them to go home. I don't think that it would shut down the government would it? Didn't they already pass a budget to run things for a while? Not sure on that. It would be fun to watch though, I'm sure it would end up in court.

[Steven]

I'm not sure who the constitutional and history experts here are, but are you all way off the mark.

The president may convene both houses for extraordinary reasons... like to request a declaration of war (as done by FDR in Dec 1941) and AT THAT session set the time for adjournment or force the session to end. The Predident cannot just adjorn Congress because he doesn't like the way things are going.

The founding fathers would never allow this since they learned from the English Kings who did this to Parliament to subject the people to tyrannical rule. Even a better view would be the roman emperors who did that to the senate and thus destroyed the republic. They Nullified the Senatorial power and control.

Congress makes the laws as the sole representative body. The President enforces those laws after he agrees to them (sign versus veto) and the Judicial branch handles the the legal system and the constitutional interpretation of the law. The President also handles foreign policy (within the constitutional guidelines/Commander in Chief - Diplomacy) and management of the Congressionally approved departments (Cabinets and Agencies). Congress is the the representative part of our government - period. (so stuff signing statements down the constitutional sink)

It's called checks and balances. Sorry if those who think the President is elected dictator for 4 years - he isn't. In fact, even Congress can't give him that power (Founding fathers again... Rome could do that... not the USA) unless the people decide to amend the constitution (oops there is that constitution again getting in the waya again).

Regards

Steve

[kid oakland]

Sure, my screen name at dailykos sounds silly when reported in the mainstream media. I'll readly concede that. When I started blogging five years ago at dailykos, like many, many bloggers at the time, I had no idea where this was headed.

Fwiw, Little Green Footballs and Instapundit don't exactly work for a mainstream audience either.

I told Jonathan Kaplan, one of the authors of that piece, today that I would have been happy if he'd used my real name, or my real name plus my dkos moniker in that article for the Hill. The "kid oakland" bit is a distraction to anyone who is not familiar with the blogs. Whatever you think of that, my reporting was accurate.

Speaker Pelosi's conference call has continued to spark debate and discussion on all sides. That's a good thing. That's what she wanted to happen both on the Iraq Supplemental and as a result of one "liberal" blogger's very valid question: what to make the President's use of signing statements specifically as it relates to the Iraq Supplemental.

Re: Article II Sec. 3

I'm not seeing it.

This:

"he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper"

seems to define this power with "on extraordinary occasions" and "in Case of Disagreement between them, with respect to Time of Adjournment."

At any rate the Constitution clearly spells out Congress's role and powers in Article 1 and Section 4 has clear language about Congress controlling when it meets...by passing laws:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

And isn't that what we are all talking about here? The power of Congress to pass laws and the obligation of citizens and the government, including the President, to obey them?

[Sue]

kid from oakland:

Yes, we are talking about the power of our "government", or do you not acknowledge that Congress is also a part of the government. I know, I know they act like they aren't, but they are. And yes, it is our obligation to obey laws. Now, would you tell that to the Mayor of San Francisco? Or the FCC when it comes to the McGees? Or, to Sharpton, Obey, Waters, and on and on and on and on......that they also need to follow and obey the laws. How about the illegal aliens? Or the jihadists?

That is the point, you see, we have finally arrived at a nation whose citizens do not feel they have to follow laws they don't like, don't feel apply, or in their opinion are unfair or unnecessary. Welcome to the democratic definition of socialism with a touch of anarchy and a shake of despotism thrown in.

The only consolation I have is that when my head is bobbing down that blood flooded street, your and everyone else's head will bobb right along side me, because we refused to see the threat when we could cope with it.

[templar knight]

I like Sue, cause she tells it like it is. I do believe I hear a bell ringing. kid from Oakland just got schooled.

[jpe]

That was truly incoherent, Sue. Was there a point in there somewhere? It sounds like you agree that the President ought to obey the law, but it's hard to tell.

[templar knight]

Uh, jpe, Sue started her second paragraph with the phrase, and I quote, "That is the point...."

I realize this is difficult for you, but try giving it a read. Makes more sense when you actually read the post, not that liberals are ever guilty of that, especially when it tends to skewer the liberal view. But just this one time, try it.

[jpe]

Just because one says there's a point doesn't mean there is one. The word "point" isn't a magical incantation that draws sense from nonsense.

Conservatives are prone to semantic relativism, though, so I'm unsurprised by the response; and, for what it's worth, I take your failure to restate Sue's "point," such as it is, as conclusive on the subject of her incoherence.

[wardmd]

The other interesting point to consider, is WHY does Congress (the Democrats, in this case) feel perfectly comfortable passing a spending bill which they KNOW to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Of course, I'm refering to the "timetable for withdrawal" aspects of the spending bill.

Yes, the Constitution vests "the power of the purse" to Congress, but the "power of the purse" does NOT vest Congress with the authority to MANAGE or RUN the war. THAT power is clearly vested in the President (as Commander-in-chief).

There is NO PROBLEM with Congress passing a funding bill (as they are, I believe, now working on) which would provide funds ONLY through a date certain. THAT IS constitutional (assuming the President doesn't veto it [and, I suspect, Congress would not have votes to override the veto]).

What is NOT Constitutional, is for Congress to attempt to DICTATE the manner in which the military will be used (by the Commander-in-chief).

Curious thought, though, is WHO has "standing" to bring a lawsuit againt Congress (if any of their plans get signed into law)?

But then Liberals don't usually care if a law is Constitutional or not, they simply go shopping for a judge who will "interpret" the law to their liking (like Kelo v. City of New London).

[kid oakland]

tk and sue. I'm not getting it.

Mayor Newsom asked the CA Supreme Court to clarify the balance of what he saw as two competing aspects of the CA State Constitution. Mayor Newsom lost. Since that time both he and the City of San Francisco have followed the ruling of the CA Supreme Court and nullified the marriages that had been performed.

You may have disagreed with Mayor Newsom's initial actions, but the Mayor has, quite clearly, followed the law, at great personal cost to thousands of his citizens, since LOSING his case before the CA Supreme Court.

The subject of this post, as I understood it, was President Bush, signing statements and what Congress and, in particular, Speaker Pelosi will do if the President issues a signing statement signaling his intention to disregard the letter of the law in an Iraq Supplemental that Congress passes and he signs.

It's an interesting topic. Legal scholars, conservative, liberal and everywhere in between are going to debate this in the coming months.

For myself, I prefer to argue on the facts but with respect for the other side. I think that's an American tradition that we've let slip. I know that I'll be reading conservative scholars on signing statements; I'd be a fool not to.

Whether Steve and I are "liberals" or not, and frankly I don't know what Steve's politics are, I think we are correct on the facts on Article II Section 3.

As an American citizen I think it is imperative to respect the law and the Constitution even as we debate it, challenge it and sometimes, change it. That's part of the process, too.

Ultimately I think legal scholars and historians of all stipes will not look kindly on President Bush's use of signing statements nor this administration's general attitude that they are somehow above laws as various as the Hatch Act, the Clean Air Amendment or the Geneva Convention.

I could be wrong, but I think it is, at the very least, an interesting topic of discussion and debate.

[southdakotaboy]

Well kid oakland has anyone really defined what "extraordinary" means in the context of this kind of action? Being involved in aremed conflict in two nations at once could by some be considered "extraordinary". To carry this to Clinton levels have we even defined what "them" means? Are we talking about the President and Congress or the House and Senate?
Could Congress pass a law that made this clause moot or would that be struck down by the SCOTUS? Your example of Article I Section IV just states that Congress gets to chose the day on which it meets. Bush could let them meet for one day then adjourn until next year and be perfectly legal.

[southdakotaboy]

Sorry about the spelling of armed.

[Sue]

First, I am not left/right, liberal/conservative. I am a traditional human being. I am old enough and have seen and heard enough to know that things that are changed without good forethought end up causing all manner of havoc. I am a firm believer in the philosophy of Jesus and the lessons in the book you all call the bible. I do not believe in God/s, but I am not stupid. There are basic human "laws" if you will that have lasted over 50,000 years, perhaps millions. They have to do with being homo sapiens on this planet and how we came about. I do not have enough conceit to think any god out there will talk to me, or that I can interpret any god's words or meanings.

This country has devolved to an appeasement mentality towards anything or anyone who screams "I am, therefore, you must conform for me". It started with Brown vs Board of Education; moved towards "equality" and women's rights creating affirmative action, moved us to equal number of all races, creeds, colors, genders regardless of actual equality of intellect, strength or ability; carried us to a multiculturalism mentality where we are now required to speak correctly (not think, yet), behave correctly or go into rehab so all is O.K.; we have raised children who have no compunction to lie, cheat or steal or become sexually promiscuous with any member of the opposite or same sex without thought to aids, STD's; a country where there is a pill for every aliment and you cannot be blamed for anything because your mommy, daddy or Bush made you do it. We hold no one accountable for anything except Republicans, Bush and Cheney. Tinfoil hatted leftist loons can freeze $90k in their freezers, get involved in million dollar land deals, get their spouses sweet billion dollar contracts, get into accidents and almost die, but speed from the hospital when we go home to "recover", or lie right to our faces and no one in the MSM points it out. We hate our military no matter that everyone says "I support our troops" and HATE has become the mantra of the left. Classical liberals are almost extinct and the insane have taken over the asylum.

The point is that San Francisco's mayor did not obey the law, but broke it! Instead of the Supreme Court, he should have been prosecuted and gone to jail as should anyone that breaks a law. Then, when you're in jail, you go to the SCOTUS and maybe get a decision that is reasonable and not made out of a nonexistent cloth!! Check out Paris Hilton, she's trying everything not to go to jail for 45 lousy days, when she should have thought about the consequence of her actions.

Well, I could go on and on but let me close this with these sayings:

(1) The road to hell is not paved with Gold folks, it is paved with the intentions of those out for money/power and prestige.
(2) Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
(3) When I used my mind, I was a liberal; when I got older, I got a heart and became a conservative.
(4) Nothing straightens you out quicker than owning your own business in order to make a living!!!