You have GOT to be kidding.
One key sentence in this article is this one:
“The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.”
If they can’t secure a “certain outcome” in Congress, ya think that might be a clue to STFU????
posted on 05/08/2007 7:12:59 PM PDT
(Liberalism exists to silence people who don't agree.)
How about this: "The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in an election.
posted on 05/08/2007 8:25:25 PM PDT
(It is better to be feared than to be respected.)
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?
posted on 05/08/2007 9:44:27 PM PDT
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.
posted on 05/08/2007 11:41:57 PM PDT
("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
To: TheRobb7; DakotaRed; JeanS; mylife
Let Pelosi sue. This will backfire. Dems are frequently missing the wave of public opinion recently and try to mount issues just after the wave passes. What has happened to “de-authorizing” the war? STUPID! They missed it. Public opinion was swaying the other way. BUT, Republicans are doing a poor job in hanging these gaffes around their necks. Repubs should anticipate the lawsuit and have a PR campaign ready to launch when the Dems try it.
posted on 05/09/2007 5:44:51 AM PDT
(What would you expect?)
The socialists never give up, they use whatever they can to get the result they want. That’s why the West is sliding into the sh!t.
All of what you say is true. I wonder if the use of 'signing statements' is an end run around the fact that there is no 'line item veto'. In 1998 the USSC declared the 'line item veto' unconstitutional ... it would take a Constitutional amendment. The court said that the "unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the US Constitution." "Signing statements" accomplish the same effect.
Don't get me wrong I'd like to see the PORK and BS in Congressional passed legislation stopped. But it needs to be done in accordance with the Constitution or its Amendments. [Just me thinking out loud.]
posted on 05/09/2007 9:45:07 AM PDT
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
You’d think but then, to them the rules do not apply.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson