Posted on 05/08/2007 7:07:38 PM PDT by Jean S
IIRC, SCOTUS said that the Jones’ case would not interfere with the POTUS’ duties.
***For the record, I voted for Clinton twice, and thought he should have resigned when Lewinsky came up.
Thank you for the info. It’s been a while.
I'm glad the Hill published this, they are mainstream although somewhat left-leaning.
I hope she trys. It will be fun to watch her rant after she fails BIGTIME!
That was for actions unrelated to his presidential duties. You can’t sue a president for acting as president.
SCOTUS proclaimed that the world at large could pursue a lawsuit against a president only after he left office.
“Personally, I cannot recall a Speaker of the House in my 64 years who has ever been trying to usurp the power of the Presidency like she has. I’d love to see her tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.”
I have two years on you and I agree! Especially would love the run out of town on a rail!! Bur then a three year term and fine for violating the Logan Act would be lovely!
My God what has our country become?
I would like to read that ruling, do you have a link?
Gosh, how I love that Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of these wingnuts ARE the face of the Dim party! You can’t get any stupider than this, AND the bonus is, they’re doing it to themselves without any help from the spineless party! LOL!
Not for very long, anyway.
WILL NONE DARE CALL THIS TREASON???
Touche'`
mark
The mere issuance of a signing statement by a President is not actionable by Congress or anyone else. The President has the freedom to say whatever he wishes about any legislation. And to the extent legislation contemplates the exercise of discretion by the executive agencies in administering the laws (which many do), the President has the right to set administration policy in administering such laws.
Now if the President refuses to enforce legislation that has become a valid law, then Congress has their remedy under the Constitution of impeachment and removal. That was essentially what was attempted against Andrew Johnson, when he failed to follow a law passed by Congress over his veto and which he claimed was unconstitutional (the Sup Ct later agreeing with him).
If Nancy Pelosi wishes to sue President Bush for failing to enforce a law, how about suing him for failing to enforce the laws regarding our border and immigration?
As you probably know, we lost 3,300 Troops during the last four years of Iraq.
Oh my God, it is going to hell in a hand basket, right?
Here is hell in a hand basket:
We averaged a thousand losses a day for twenty one straights days on Iwo Jima.
So, put it into perspective now:
we are in our fourth year in Iraq and the third day on Iwo Jima.
Peloser is taking away the outstanding job our Troops have done in Iraq. I am damn proud of the fine job our Troops have done.
Sure things can be better, but tough times don't last, tough people do.
Peloser is undermining the war and that is treasonous. We should exile her to Iran and shoot her with an ICBM.
May God Bless all of our Troops forever.
There’a always the threat that they will be ignored. They have no enforcement mechanism - except for their bailiff Rusty. Seriously, I want to see Pelosi try this - there’s a lot of post-Vietnam rubbish to be cleared away (e.g., the War Powers Act) and this could be the time to do it.
There’a always the threat that they will be ignored. They have no enforcement mechanism - except for their bailiff Rusty. Seriously, I want to see Pelosi try this - there’s a lot of post-Vietnam rubbish to be cleared away (e.g., the War Powers Act) and this could be the time to do it.
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.