What's To Prevent * From Using Signing Statements If The Dems Win...

[global1]

the house and/or senate?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Oh, that's an easy one:

The imminent threat of impeachment.

[BattyDem]

2. The Dems in the House and the Senate

The only reason * is getting away with that bullshit is because the Repugs are allowing him to. If the Dems control things, Mr. "Unitary Executive" is going to get a Constitutional wake-up call!

[Lexingtonian]

3. the Supreme Court

Next question?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. yep, that fully loaded Supreme Court is spooky...

While the religious reich might think those new Justices
will serve their strange vision of moral mind-police
the high judges will only serve their true masters,
much like our current leadership has done.

[Mountainman]

4. We have hearings on C-span every day and on cable news every night

OVERSITE!

[DRoseDARs]

5. Not much I'm afraid. But if they take both chambers it might be enough...

...to convince some Republicans in Congress to side with the Democrats on certain important issues pertaining to the Bush Administration. They might provide the Democrats with enough votes to make certain legislation veto-proof. They know his policies have been a disaster for the country and (more importantly to them) their party, so when push comes to shove, a Democrat-controlled Congress might be the only opportunity for the remaining Republicans to save their own skins before the '08 round of elections comes up. A crass attempt to placate their constituents and convince them that they've magically made up for all the times they voted in support of Bush's policies, but what would you expect?

[jobycom]

6. The Dems will control the budget and the appointment approvals

Bush needs Congress. He's just used to them rubber-stamping his wishes, so he hasn't had to give in yet. If the Dems are in charge, they can shut him down, even shut down the government, if Bush refuses to do his job.

[Chomskyite]

7. Hearings

On each one of them. Every single day.

Also legislation that includes the line that any signing statement would be disregarded by all agencies charged to carry out that legislation.

[Ignacio Upton]

8. We'll just hold up everything and investigate him

Also, we should pass legislation OUTLAWING signing statements. However, even if we take back one or both houses of Congress, I doubt the GOP (maybe Arlen Specter, because he may feel less threatened into going with the party line if we control the House and/or Senate) will support it, because they will feel "hey, we've already lost Congress. Let's use the decider to stop the Democrat Party from passin' lib'rul legislation." We need a super-majority to override Bush's veto on this, and I don't expect that we'll get two-thirds of the House and Senate to stop Bush on signing statements.

[rpannier]

9. It would be impossible (at this point) to be veto proof in the Senate

As is stands, if we hold all the Democratic Senate Seats, take all the Republican Seats that are leaning Dem, take all the toss-up seats and all the ones leaning puke we'd have 53 Seats. There are only 7 solid Republican seats left: Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Mississippi, Maine and Indiana. The Dems aren't running anyone in Indiana, so it's off the table. That leaves 6 'contested' elections that the pukes are favored to win easily. If by some miracle we took all those seats that would give us 59.

on note: I don't think there's anything that will undo Hatch, Thomas, Lott or Snowe between now and November. I think the Foley scandal will have little affect on these races, unless you can show a connection between these individual Senators and the cover-up.

[speedoo]

10. If you're right (and I have no doubt that you are)...

then the threat of impeachment would appear to be the only legitimate alternative, and it would have to be both Bush and Cheney.

Sounds like the Dems had better get ready for that.

[Senator]

11. ONLY Actual Impeachment And Removal -- nothing else

No "threats," no hearings, no investigations, no majorities (veto-proof or not), no polls, no Euphemedia condemnation, no court (formerly-supreme or not), no "shut down" (non-emergency or otherwise), no scandal, no "finding," nothing.

It really is just that simple.

This is what 21st Century Fascism looks like. (Were you waiting for goose-stepping?)

Impeachment is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

We need to demand that our "leaders" get on with it.

How? Well, "Violence" is the Answer.

--

[soothsayer]

12. I don't think a Democratic-controlled house/senate would stop him.

They might want to preserve that precedent for when we take the WH in the 2008 election.

[onenote]

13. can you give a specific example?

It depends on what the legislation is and what you think the signing statement is going to say. If the Democrats pass legislation establishing a minimum wage, I don't imagine there will any signing statment issue.

On the other hand, if the Democrats pass legislation trying to control domestic spying, chimpy might well try a signing statement. Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide what, if any, weight to give the signing statement should a case be brought claiming that the administration is continuing to engage in domestic surveillance contrary to the express terms of a law enacted by Congress.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. Pass a veto-proof bill stating he can't use signing statements,

then, when he ignores the law, the Supreme Court steps in.

[gulliver]

16. Absolutely, or at least add a provision to every bill...

... saying that the law applies to all Americans, including those serving as president.