PELOSI: "We Can Take The President To Court" Over Signing Statements

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 threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor
May 09, 2007
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.”

more at:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-threat-to-sue-bush-over-iraq-bill-2007-05-08.html

be effective

But framed properly, the question should be that the executive branch is taking upon itself the writing and interpretation of the law, rather than its enforcement. I think the courts would rule on an abuse of separation of powers theory. It's a close question under ordinary, good-faith circumstances. I think the present situation is anything but ordinary, and certainly the Bush administration has a long history of operating in bad faith. The courts might intervene. I should hope they would intervene. The constitution is not a suicide pact, and the other two branches of government don't have to sit idly by while the executive immolates our system.

you can also Impeach him, and with a lot more success I think

but they can't convict YET in the Senate

the key to Nixon's succesful thtret, he was never impeached, was that the REPUBLICANS told Nixon, step down or you will also be CONVICTED in the Senate

The collapse of the Republican party has started, so that is increasingly in the cards

...if they don't hold the White House accountable, any party could win the presidency.

I'd be shocked if we could get Lieberman to vote for it. Hagel might. I believe that more than 40% of Americans support it.

I just want to do the right thing, the just thing and begin these proceedings. The Dems KNEW that * would veto the Iraq bill, but they spent all that time to pass the bill anyway.... for what?


Why can't the same be done for Impeachment? At least we will have tried. And in doing so it would certainly show me, and hopefully the rest of the world that the Dems care about doing the right thing, not the politically tenable.

THAT's your path to impeachment.

Or do you imagine over 30 US Senators (even GOP) standing up to defend torture and war crimes?

No one went to Nixon until the charges were voted out of committee. The DC Dems have to act first. Not talk, not threaten, not sue, not de-fund, not de-authorize, but actually ACT.

Then the chips can fall where they may. The American People will at least have been stood up for.

---

What do you think happened when the stovepiping of the WMD happened ?

I think it would help "get 'er done" if we clarified the impeachment effort. The goal is just to get them away from the sharp objects (and the nu-cu-lar button).

Our habit on the "reality/knowledge-based" left is to fetishize information. To gather and disseminate far too much of it. We are far too often trying to "teach" or "expose" our way to something -- without actually acting when the info we already have is sufficient.

A single impeachment article on torture/Geneva violatons would have the best chance of getting us where we need to go. It is in fact the worst of their atrocities. And if that fails, we can then move to the others (illegal spying would be next on the "slam dunk" roster).

======

resignations by the carload.

Read Greg Palast's 'Khan Job'
http://www.gregpalast.com/khan-job-bush-spiked-probe-of-pakistan%E2%80%99s-dr-strangelove-bbc-reported-in-2001/

and pay special attention to this :

"A top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity said that, after Bush took office, "There was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off " from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the Bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations-at least before September 11-began to die."

What this means is that Plame/Wilson weren't the target of the Bush wrath but rather the company she worked for in all the meanings of the word 'company'. The front company was an anti-proliferation operation by the CIA. Cheney and Bush spiked it. Why ?

BTW, why is Ptech's software still in use at DOJ and WH etc. ?

Ptech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptech

No one in the GOP wants to go anywhere near these topics. Let's take them by the hand and lead them there then, shall we ?

And of people with "strictest anonymity" at that. Rove would love to have Dems chasing wild geese like Saudi finances and CIA front company specifics. The effort would be put into the "Gumming It To Death" Hall of Fame.

And in the end you're still stuck with the impossibility of proving intent-to-lie vs. belief/incompetence. You give the 30+ GOP Senators the easiest of outs "we don't buy it -- acquitted."

Now, if you want to charge them with "Terrorizing the American People with a bomb threat of 'Mushroom Clouds!' without cause" and allow them to try to defend that action in a trial, you might have a winning case. But still no where near as open and shut as torture.

The torture charge is ready to go -- pre-investigated, even pre-adjudicated (Hamdan), and media friendly (we might even see the Abu Ghraib video). They are already on the record with memos and talk like "quaint" and "dunking" that reveals their rationalizations for premeditatedly violating war crime law.

The only thing lacking is the political will to face reality.

It the one charge that could have the whole messy business over in less than a month.

----

This is how the CIA and GOP have set up a money spigot for themselves.

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

This is hardly the 'asking questions' stage. Besides, it brings certain unpleasantries to the media's attention. Look who has DOJ and WH computer access,

Ptech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptech

Why DOJ, WH, and FAA ? Hmmm.

The torture thing will go nowhere. Terrorists getting tortured to most seems like 'turnabout is fair play'.

And provably, admittedly so. You either blame someone or become a party to it.

Even the GOP would rather blame bushcheney.

--

Where DUers really have * is over the funding for the 14 Permanent Bases in Iraq...this AFTER * said that 'As Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down'

How much $ are those 14 bases going to cost and who's paying for them ? Are they a part of the current budget Iraq appropriation ? It ends much sooner than you think if you 'follow the money' so to speak.

And are you suggesting that "muslim terrorists" are going to come defend bushcheney is a Senate impeachment trial?

Perhaps you might turn your "open-question machine gun" on why the Congress (via Snowe/Bayh) is now only willing to accept factual information directly from General David Petraeus and why his first order of business after accepting this mantle of defacto Commander in Chief is to try to stop the torture.

--

Permanent bases, remember ? Yet * said 'as Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down'. That's just not so. And yes, those OBL guys sure do seem to pop up with something whenever * is in political trouble. They need him it seems.

So unless and until you've got a money trail from bushcheney to OBL, torture charges are the best current way to evict the war criminals and save lives.

--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x874355

"The moderator of the event at which Rep. Waters spoke had mentioned the following impeachable offenses: spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, misleading Congress about grounds for a war, and sending prisoners to other countries and to Guantanamo to torture them and to bypass judicial process."

Most of us won't get too worked up over the torture issue but those other items...they're a slam dunk.

...but the US Senate was worked up enough to pass McCain's Anti-Torture Amendment 90-9.

It's not that the other offenses are not impeachable, just that the torture/war crimes charge is more winnable. The public is not really the audience anymore. They already want impeachment. Forcing politicians to act is the objective.

---

Are you saying that the bfee has installed software into sensitive gov computers that was developped and sold to them by the very same terrorist we are supposed to be at war with?

They went on and on about his gaffe with him stuttering and starting to say "1776" rather than 1976.

They went on and on about his low poll numbers

I hate Bush but did not think his simple slur of the words was significant.

I felt great because it looks like the tide is turning against him.

I don't get why taking him to court would be the preferred option

The Dems are waiting for a blowjob before they do something THAT drastic. Illegal war, torture, no habeas corpus, warrantless searches/spying, election fraud and blatant cronyism isn't enough for Nancy and company. Their weakness is not just a sign of weakness, but also of collusion. Any Congressperson who takes "impeachment" off the table deserves jail too. Period.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We should tolerate all of the above. Silly me.

"We can issues sobpenas"
"We can stop the funding"
"We can stop signing statements"

THEN FUCKING DO IT!

we are just too cowardly to actually do it.

herself, I can understand where she is going with this, kind of a back door way that might accomplish the same end.

Talk that isn't back up by actions is meaningless.

It was illegal when those were signed also, right?

Since no 'clear' (truthful) 'situation' or 'circumstances' since the inception of this disaster occurred, the IWR is now null and void.

and Alito is very much in favor of signing statements and the unitary executive. Unless Kennedy can be persuaded to vote with the sane members of the highest court of the land, you know how that ends up.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

At least Waxman, Leahy & Conyers are DOING something. Like I tell my employees: "I don't want excuses, I want results!

Put impeachment back on the table, as the main course, and let the chips fall where they may. If you don't at least attempt it you are in derelection of your duties and your oath of office.

You stupid fuck? Blah, blah, "We don't have the votes!", blah, blah, "It'll be seen as a political thing!" blah, blah, "It might hurt my chances of getting reelected!", blah, blah, blah...

You can translate the above as follows: "I refuse to do my Constitutional duty!"

Oh, that I lived in California in her district and could vote the stupid c*** right the fuck out of her cushy l'il position...

EDIT: NO SEXISM IS INTENDED. I just really, really hate the bitch since her precious "Impeachment is off the table" remark.

:eyes:

Pelosi's Toothless Threat to Sue Bush Imperils Constitution
By Dave Lindorff

The bankruptcy of the Democratic Party leadership’s position in Congress on impeachment was revealed in stark terms yesterday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would sue the president in court if he resorted to a signing statement to kill the next version of Congress’s Iraq funding bill.

Suing Bush over a signing statement, given the number of Federalist judges that this administration has named to the federal district and appellate courts, and to the US Supreme Court, is not just an exercise in futility; it is a dangerous tactic which could backfire disastrously by leading to a ruling that it’s perfectly constitutional for a president to ignore laws passed by the Congress. Does Pelosi really want to risk such a catastrophe?

The only solution is to impeach the president over his signing statements, and there is no need to wait for the next one to take action. Bush has invalidated more than 1200 laws or parts of laws passed by Congress since 2001 using what are called “signing statements.”

See more here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x854833
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x280573

If the courts rule that Presidential signing statements have the force of law, despite all constitutional evidence to the contrary, I will start wondering if the government is beyond fixing. As Ed Howdershelt said "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." The soap box is being ignored by the Bush Administration - the entire nation is screaming at him to stop the war, but he just doesn't give a shit. The ballot box has been corrupted by Rove, see 2000 & 2004. The jury box is running out of power - lawyers and judges have found endless ways to keep juries in line. Guess that leave the ammo box...

is that these republicans think we liberals are from a different stock, that our forebearers did not fight tooth and nail for our freedoms. Hopefully it won't have to come to this, but can you imagine the looks on their faces as we storm the capital with our guns and ammo in hand? Lord knows, I wouldn't kill a fly. But would I kill someone taking away my right to vote, habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, and my freedom from torture from my govt.? Not a problem.

get to that court.:(

Don't think you can equate signing statements with the text of Section III article 3 of the Constitution.

court, hearing the evidence of ALL of his crimes.

If you aren't going to do your job, then resign from the speaker post and let someone who will lead take over.

I'm sick to death of her crap. That compromise she and others were involved in the other day, the secret trade deal with Bush, has made me wonder what she cares about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x867693

Hey Nancy, lead or get out of the way before it is too late. :grr:

Some times I think those of us who are not being represented by these weak-kneed Dems should vote for a third party candidate or not show up at the polls at all. Maybe THEN they will get the message that we are not stupid lemings as the repukes are.

:rofl: absurd.

vote changed to Republican, or to vote for a representative who refuses to take a stand on issues that matter to you is a sign of intelligence?

No, THAT would be absurd! And a useless waste of your time. But by all means, do as you wish and I'll do the same.

(As if some strange prick online is going to determine whether I vote or not by ridiculing me. The unbelievable arrogance)

Get over yourself.:spank:

Your response is emotional and ridiculous. What are you referencing with regard to "intelligence." Suggesting that people stay home and not vote because of vote flipping is quite funny. Need I remind you that you are posting on a political board. :D

your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you.

Peace out.

won't win squat.

We have to keep trying to get our party to do our will, the first step to that would be demanding Pelosi resign her leadership and let someone committed to the change we need and wanted when we gave the dems the power in 2006.

Oh, and that goes for Harry Reid too.

Damnit, they need to stop compromising and they must start protecting the Constitution, as they swore an oath to do.

even with the polls showing that Americans agree with them, they REFUSE to do our will. 53% want impeachment, but she takes "impeachment off the table". Leaving it on the table does not mean that they HAVE to impeach, but to take it off the table means that they care more about Bill O'Lielly's opinion than those that put her into office. I have written my share of emails to various politicians, but it seems that red state voters who will never consider voting for weak (gee, I wonder how they get that impression) Democrats take precedence over my humble opinion.

And I respect your right to continue to vote for these people, but if they only wish to continue to lower their standards of conduct to appease the minority population on significant issues, then I see no reason to leave my house on election day.

I admit that they are doing some good things (subpeonas, etc.), but I do not want to see my vote be used to continue violence, poverty, illegal crimes and "compromises" that insult my intelligence. Can anyone do worse than Bush? Not likely, so I don't see the harm in just staying home. Who knows, maybe the other 50% of the population who have not voted will be fed up enough to vote themselves.

There are only two parties and if you don't vote for one, then you are in effect voting for the other.

That is the plain truth of our political system today.

if I begin to see no difference between the two when it comes to matters of urgency, then I am supposed to vote Democratic because I always have? I am not saying that I now refuse to vote. What I am saying is that I am beginning to find the excercise useless because my reasons for pulling the lever for a candidate has no significance in the scheme of things. Not only that, when I and others complain to said person, we are marginalized. This may be acceptable to others, but not to me.


On a brighter note!

58% want Third Party

Get it DONE.

be done with both war criminals at the same time? guttural sigh...