Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:34 AM
Original message
What's To Prevent * From Using Signing Statements If The Dems Win...
the house and/or senate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, that's an easy one:
The imminent threat of impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. the Supreme Court

Next question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffersons Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. We have hearings on C-span every day and on cable news every night
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 02:43 AM by Mountainman
OVERSITE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chomskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. If you're right (and I have no doubt that you are)...
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 06:37 AM by speedoo
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
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.

--



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. Pass a veto-proof bill stating he can't use signing statements,
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 01:42 PM by Ninja Jordan
then, when he ignores the law, the Supreme Court steps in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Absolutely, or at least add a provision to every bill...
... saying that the law applies to all Americans, including those serving as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC