King George Strikes Again
By: Teddy
Published On: 3/27/2006 2:00:00 AM
Here is another marker on the road to the unitary executive espoused by President Bush and his minions: last month George W. Bush signed into law a bill that passed the Senate, but did NOT pass the House, as required by the Constitution. The House version of the Senate?s budget-cutting bill was $2 billion different. However, the Senate bill was ?certified? by the (Republican) leadership of both House and Senate, despite the fact the House had not in fact passed a version identical to the Senate bill, thus bypassing any messy conference committee and re-voting (it's called "democracy," last time I checked).
Now Public Citizen, a watchdog group, has gone to court, suing to block this law. The ?law? intends to cut some $40 billion over five years, and thus vitally affects millions of Americans. Constitutional scholars are absolutely flummoxed, and can think of no precedent for such action. Republicans, of course, have found ?an obscure Supreme Court ruling from the 1890s to suggest that a bill does not actually have to pass both chambers of Congress to become law.?
Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post calls this situation ?bizzarre.? I call it blatantly unconstitutional, and yet another example of the deliberate whittling away of our system of government. If Bush gets away with this, what next? Not bothering to have a law passed by either chamber, simply rule by executive decree, or having such decrees ?certified? by the rubber stamp leadership of Congress? Did Mr. Bush not say at one time that ?it certainly would be a lot easier by we had a dictatorship?? Oh, that?s right: ?9/11 changed everything.? I keep forgetting.
Comments
I really think most (Rebecca Williams - 4/4/2006 11:34:19 PM)
I really think most of the Democrats in Washington are out of touch with what we think, but we need to write them anyway. Later on they will realize we really mean it.
I agree, Rebecca. B (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:34:19 PM)
I agree, Rebecca. But what about this latest outrage, shredding the very Constitution, disposing of the legislative branch as trivial? Perhaps the Republicans reasoned that, being in the majority in both Houses, if they went back to the House of Representatives to bring their bill into line with the Senate's, it would of course be forced through with party discipline enforcing the President's will, so why bother and waste time... it was a foregone conclusion. I intend myself to write a letter (ha!) to my Congressman and Senators questioning this whole peculiar business. It's just for the record, and to let them know their constituents do pay attention, but I expect nothing from any of them: John Warner, George Allen, Tom Davis--- all are thoroughly disciplined Republicans.
Maybe also, write a few letters to the editor?
Democrats need to st (Rebecca - 4/4/2006 11:34:19 PM)
Democrats need to stop playing Republican lite. That is Democrats need to stop acting like poor whites trying to imitate the Massa. They need to start acting in the interest of the ordinary people.
That's where the progressives need to get involved. We need to offer the grassroots a voice and make our endorsement a sought after commodity for any candidate who wants to win. When candidates realize that the grassroots can offer a lot of what they used to pay for (volunteers and advertisement) they will wake up to the power of a sleeping giant, the people of the United States.
In order to stop the (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:34:19 PM)
In order to stop the unilateral executive 2 things need to happen:
1. Democrats need to stand up and stand for VALUES.
2. Dems need to win back the House or the Senate.
2 follows from 1.
Typo intrudes: it sh (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:34:19 PM)
Typo intrudes: it should read "It certainly would be a lot easier IF we had a dictatorship." My question is, why does it take a law suit to quash this thing? And, considering how Bush has packed the courts, what confidence do we have that the courts will oppose the high-handness of His Highness? This is getting more than scary.