Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill
The Hill ^ | 5/9/07 | Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor

Posted on 05/08/2007 7:07:38 PM PDT by Jean S

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.

Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. Several senators and Democratic presidential candidates recently have proposed that idea.

“There was a ripple around the room” in support of the idea, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

In the 1970s, 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.

In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.

The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.

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.  

A law professor at Georgetown Law Center, Nicholas Rosenkranz, said Bush is likely to express his view on the constitutionality of the next supplemental in writing. Whether Bush has leeway to treat any provision of the supplemental as advisory, however, depends on the wording Congress chooses, Rosenkranz added.

Bruce Fein, who was a Justice Department official under President Reagan, said Democrats seeking to challenge a signing statement would have to try to give themselves standing before filing a lawsuit.

“You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate … to seek 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],” Fein said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that “the odds would be good” for a signing statement on the next supplemental, considering that Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills. But Levin did not offer any clues as to how Democratic leaders would counter Bush.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: defeatocrats; democrats; demosocialists; dhimmicrats; islamophiles; kos; leftistsandislamists; pelosi; shariasupporters; traitors; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-239 next last
To: capydick
"Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting."

Did they give up on Murtha's plan to "re-postion" a Middle East Rapid Reaction Force in Okinawa, Japan? In which they would have to fly 6,000 miles, across the heart of China and Iran, in order to "re-insert" if things "turned bad?"

121 posted on 05/08/2007 9:34:40 PM PDT by cookcounty (No journalist ever won a prize for reporting the facts. --Telling big stories? Now that's a hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

LOL!!!!


122 posted on 05/08/2007 9:42:16 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy (Hillary '08...Her Phoniness is Genuine!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

>>
I’m not sending anyone a dime until I see some one with some balls go back after Pelosi and company and go after her HARD. I see NOTHING so far . They are not worth a dime , the lot of them .
>>

The puppet masters are well funded. They are pulling her strings.

You go after her if you are funded. You can’t go after her if you are not funded. Meaning, if these alleged conservative Democrats feel no threat of a well funded opposing candidate in their district, they can march to her tune. Opposing candidates can’t do anything without money. Why would the media listen to what they say if they are powerless, and without money . . . they are powerless.

The horse goes in front of the cart. Not behind it. We need to know who the vulnerable Democrats are who are placeholding in OUR seats and their districts need to be flooded with news of what the Speaker THEY voted for is doing. It takes money to flood.


123 posted on 05/08/2007 9:44:18 PM PDT by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

Congress has a means to force on the president legislation he does not want, and that is by a two-thirds majority in each house. So how can they exhaust the means available to them unless they have done this?


124 posted on 05/08/2007 9:44:27 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mylife
"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.”

I will pay any MSM reporter $50 if they ask Hillary if she agrees with what Bush wrote, or does whe agree with democrats that if she becomes President she DOESN'T have this power.

125 posted on 05/08/2007 9:46:18 PM PDT by boop (Now Greg, you know I don't like that WORD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: boop

Bingo


126 posted on 05/08/2007 9:47:31 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: sonic109
Well ..anyone see the Republicans fighting her back ..making a serious statement against her..calling her out on her bullsh*t ? I don’t Us screaming about it on FR wont get the job done. Why won’t ONE just ONE person who supposedly represents ME get off their ass and and go after this pig Pelosi and drag her down for breaking the law ( trying to dictate foreign policy on her own during war time ) WHY ???WHY damn it !

Well stated, needs to be repeated. I am more disgusted with our wimpy Reps in Congress. Most deserve to be replaced with Warrior conservatives. I wonder if someone doesn't have pictures that compromise most of the Reps. It doesn't seem right that not ONE Representative doesn't yell and call her what she is -- "a TRAITOR!"

127 posted on 05/08/2007 9:48:51 PM PDT by sand88 (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: All

128 posted on 05/08/2007 9:53:53 PM PDT by cdnerds (cdnerds.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Nancy Pelosi wants to be Commander In Chief? That woman is dumb as a box of rocks. She wants to issue orders to the military, she can run for President. Just more Democrat b*tching, whining and moaning.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

129 posted on 05/08/2007 10:25:14 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.

Sounds like there's not much wiggle room for Queen Nancy to get her way on this one.

130 posted on 05/08/2007 10:29:49 PM PDT by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
YOUR ACTION REQUESTED BY SOME TROOPS IN IRAQ: Please spread the word about an appeal for redress that people in the military can sign to show support for the mission. They are having problems getting the word out:


www.appealforcourage.org

If you haven't seen this yet: A campaign by active-duty troops asking Congress to drop plans for a withdrawal from Iraq. Lt. Jason Nichols, a 33-year-old naval projects officer who has been in Baghdad since mid-January, said the goal is to keep lawmakers focused on letting the military finish its mission in Iraq, and not prematurely declare failure

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7392499685041821301&hl=en

Petitions for civilians:
http://www.townhall.com/ref/surrender
http://www.gopetition.com/online/11574.html

131 posted on 05/08/2007 10:30:54 PM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
How low can the democrat party go?

I'm certain we'll find out.
132 posted on 05/08/2007 11:02:53 PM PDT by MonicaG (In hoc signo vinces. The whole world will see justice done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Aria
She’s drunk on her own B. S.!!!!!
AMEN!

133 posted on 05/08/2007 11:22:38 PM PDT by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Precisely!


134 posted on 05/08/2007 11:34:45 PM PDT by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

The dems never gain anything the legal way. That’s how they’ve always RULED and they think they are entitled to do whatever they want to get the end result they want.

It’s the most disgusting display of arrogance I’ve ever seen.


135 posted on 05/08/2007 11:41:57 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami

Pelosi's spokesman is a Muslim from the Middle East. How fitting.

136 posted on 05/09/2007 2:10:38 AM PDT by SolidWood (Islam is an insanity cult that makes everyone act Arab)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
At some point, Mrs. Poloser will have to be arrested and tried for treason.
137 posted on 05/09/2007 3:41:00 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Anti Islam and a Global Warming denier - piss on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

But the good news is that House Repubs, along with a clear majority of Senate Repubs and dems do not support Pelosi’s and Murtha’s approach and ideas for a new supplemental bill. Pelosi and Murtha want to substitute timetables with difficult to reach benchmarks in short periods of time (60 days financing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the President would have certify that the Iraqi government had met certain goals, followed by another vote in the House for an additional 60 days funding). This tactic has no chance of success, not going to happen.


138 posted on 05/09/2007 4:03:54 AM PDT by moose2004 (You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This woman (another term comes to mind) thinks that she is the President of the United States! There’s no other explanation for it! Conducting foreign policy with our enemies, contradicting President Bush at every term, giving al Queada every indication that we will surrender, etc...

Your etc. should have included using the CIA to ivestigate global warming. This woman is a hamburger short of a Happy Meal!

139 posted on 05/09/2007 4:36:28 AM PDT by Road Warrior 04 (Soon to be Fredbacker1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame

Who is the bigger threat to our nation’s security, LIBERALS or Islamic jihadists?


140 posted on 05/09/2007 4:42:10 AM PDT by Jazzman1 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-239 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson