Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Quote: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or
must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

According to your question, any law in question must have been determined to be either
constitutional or unconstitutional by somebody.

The first example I provided of "NO FUNDS SHALL BE USED"
How is it Constitutional for the President to tell Congress that under the Constitution he can over ride that requirement and proceed in spending Funds in those areas?
It's under the Defense Appropriations Bill where Congress forbids certain moneys from being utilized for certain items.
The President seems to imply that his role as Commander in Chief grants him the authority to over rule Congressional limitations of spending.

Now, let's apply your question to that example.
Quote: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or
must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

[John Galt]

Gitana wrote: Quote: We never signed this imaginary updated version and are not bound by made up treaties.

According to Bush, we aren't even bound by the one we did sign.

Like I said, soldiers are different than terrorists. Please show me text of a treaty that we signed that is in question.

Quote: Quote:
The proposed legislation targets terrorists.

No. Like the Patriot Act wording, the proposed legislations wording is so broad that it leaves plenty of room for abuse. We must take this (and all actions by this admin) in context, and in view of past performance and goals by this admin. To not do so would be to foolishly ignore machinations. (Hence, the seemingly unrelated paragraphs in my post.)

Please quote, from the PATRIOT Act, the broad words that do just that.


You missed the entire point. But should you really want to know, that info is all over the internet; google your preferred source. Patriot I or II + civil rights, Domestic Security Enhancement Act + civil rights, etc.

No, I will not. Every time I ask this question no one shows me teh text. They just say it's out there. I would like to see text from the law. Since you say it exists I trust you have read the law and know where in the law the text exists instead of just relying on hearsay of others.

Quote: Quote: What the question is is whether or not teh President should enforce the law even if it is unconstitutional.

I answered that. Now, if a president doesn't fulfill that oath, or works to circumnvent the Constitution, what are the possible consequences?

FDR was reelected three times.

[John Galt]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Quote: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or
must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

According to your question, any law in question must have been determined to be either
constitutional or unconstitutional by somebody.

The first example I provided of "NO FUNDS SHALL BE USED"
How is it Constitutional for the President to tell Congress that under the Constitution he can over ride that requirement and proceed in spending Funds in those areas?
It's under the Defense Appropriations Bill where Congress forbids certain moneys from being utilized for certain items.
The President seems to imply that his role as Commander in Chief grants him the authority to over rule Congressional limitations of spending.

Now, let's apply your question to that example.
Quote: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or
must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

Interesting. So, what has he spent money on that was forbidden by Congress from spending money on?

[Norrin Radd]

John Galt wrote:

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

Frankly most of the Constitution has to do with what government can specifically do, and frankly the leftists in this country have rendered the Constitution meaningless. But that is neither here nor there as to the topic at hand.

I disagree, as I believe it is very important to the topic at hand.

While a handful of people argue over one aspect of the abuse of power, the many other abuses are not addressed. Also, I believe it is both the left and the right which have trampled the constitution.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only current congressman who truly understands the constitution and believe in that document.

He said........

"The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us."

Now, how many people at this thread agree with Mr. Paul?

I agree with him 100% and I am very curious as to how many people on this thread truly understand the limits the constitution placed on our government.

The constitution is no longer followed by our government.

[John Galt]

I agree with him but lets try to stay somewhat on topic.

[Norrin Radd]

Sure, stay on topic, if you can. I have killed more threads on this forum than anyone, simply by posting the truth. If you look at the number of threads where one of my posts is the last one, it becomes obvious how much people here fear the truth. Anything that makes them see how frivolous most of these topics are, how out of touch with reality they are, is simply dismissed. This allows people here to continue to live in their imaginary world where both parties have NOT sold out the American people.

I have seen it at many forums, not just here. People like to focus on a particular issue, or topic, as this allows them to look at the world through blinders. It does not matter if the topic is Elian Gonzalez, flag burning, gay marriage, anything which does not look at the big picture.

I find this very sad, as there are some very smart people here. Enough to actually make a difference in this country, if they did not run and hide from the truth like frightened school girls.

I have asked, begged people to read certian information, but they either refuse to read it, or they just dismiss it, as they will not accept any information which shatters the imaginary world in which they live.

[Gitana]

Quote: Now, how many people at this thread agree with Mr. Paul?

I agree with him, but unfortunately that's not the country we live in, is it.

John, I will start another thread on the Patriot Act this evening, so that we don't stray too far off topic here.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Norrin Radd wrote: John Galt wrote:

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

Frankly most of the Constitution has to do with what government can specifically do, and frankly the leftists in this country have rendered the Constitution meaningless. But that is neither here nor there as to the topic at hand.

I disagree, as I believe it is very important to the topic at hand.

While a handful of people argue over one aspect of the abuse of power, the many other abuses are not addressed. Also, I believe it is both the left and the right which have trampled the constitution.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only current congressman who truly understands the constitution and believe in that document.

He said........

"The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us."

Now, how many people at this thread agree with Mr. Paul?

I agree with him 100% and I am very curious as to how many people on this thread truly understand the limits the constitution placed on our government.

The constitution is no longer followed by our government.

:tu: 100% :clap:

[Richard Owl Mirror]

John Galt wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Quote: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or
must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

According to your question, any law in question must have been determined to be either
constitutional or unconstitutional by somebody.

The first example I provided of "NO FUNDS SHALL BE USED"
How is it Constitutional for the President to tell Congress that under the Constitution he can over ride that requirement and proceed in spending Funds in those areas?
It's under the Defense Appropriations Bill where Congress forbids certain moneys from being utilized for certain items.
The President seems to imply that his role as Commander in Chief grants him the authority to over rule Congressional limitations of spending.

Now, let's apply your question to that example.
Quote: whether or not the President should uphold the Constitution or
must he enforce an unconstitutional law which, at the time he signed it, he viewed as wholly constitutional.

Interesting. So, what has he spent money on that was forbidden by Congress from spending money on?
Blockquotes are from the Presidential Signing statements, TEXT is the LAW which Congress passed.
Quote:
H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006"

TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
SEC. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used to initiate a special access program without prior notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the congressional defense committees.
SEC. 8011. None of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without 30-day advance notification to the Committees on Appropriations.
SEC. 8093. None of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate a new start program without prior written notification to the Office of Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees.
Quote: Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

SEC. 8059. (a) LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to transfer to another nation or an international organization any defense articles or services (other than intelligence services) for use in the activities described in subsection (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.

(b) COVERED ACTIVITIES- This section applies to--

(1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution; and

(2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.

(c) REQUIRED NOTICE- A notice under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services to be transferred.

(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or services to be transferred.

(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or supplies--

(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be transferred have been met; and

(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Quote: Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

SEC. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2006, the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day of such fiscal year.

(b) The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Defense as well as all justification material and other documentation supporting the fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were effective with regard to fiscal year 2007.

SEC. 8032. The President shall include with each budget for a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and hereafter, materials that shall identify clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and expenses related to administrative activities of the Department of Defense, the military departments, and the defense agencies.

SEC. 8037. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the appropriations or funds available to the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an item would not have been chargeable to the Department of Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and if the purchase of such an investment item would be chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations made to the Department of Defense for procurement.

(b) The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Defense as well as all justification material and other documentation supporting the fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed fiscal year 2007 procurement appropriation and not in the supply management business area or any other area or category of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.

SEC. 8100. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2007 submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code shall include separate budget justification documents for costs of United States Armed Forces' participation in contingency operations for the Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these documents shall include a description of the funding requested for each contingency operation, for each military service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and for each appropriations account: Provided further, That these documents shall include estimated costs for each element of expense or object class, a reconciliation of increases and decreases for each contingency operation, and programmatic data including, but not limited to, troop strength for each Active and Reserve component, and estimates of the major weapons systems deployed in support of each contingency: Provided further, That these documents shall include budget exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation) for all contingency operations for the budget year and the two preceding fiscal years.
Quote: A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

SEC. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the national interest, he may, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not to exceed $3,750,000,000 of working capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made available in this Act to the Department of Defense for military functions (except military construction) between such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare or present a request to the Committees on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority provided in this section must be made prior to June 30, 2006: Provided further, That transfers among military personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be transferred under this section.
Quote: Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

SEC. 8104. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for integration of foreign intelligence information unless the information has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized foreign intelligence activities: Provided, That information pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as implemented through Executive Order No. 12333.

SEC. 8106. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be obligated to modify command and control relationships to give Fleet Forces Command administrative and operational control of U.S. Navy forces assigned to the Pacific fleet: Provided, That the command and control relationships which existed on October 1, 2004, shall remain in force unless changes are specifically authorized in a subsequent Act.

SEC. 8119. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to transfer research and development, acquisition, or other program authority relating to current tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the Army.

(b) The Army shall retain responsibility for and operational control of the Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the Secretary of Defense in matters relating to the employment of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Quote: The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.


SEC. 8014. (a) LIMITATION ON CONVERSION TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE- None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to convert to contractor performance an activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees unless--

(1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-private competition that includes a most efficient and cost effective organization plan developed by such activity or function;

(2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers for performance of the activity or function, the cost of performance of the activity or function by a contractor would be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that equals or exceeds the lesser of--

(A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or function by Federal employees; or

(B) $10,000,000; and

(3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of Defense by--

(A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan available to the workers who are to be employed in the performance of that activity or function under the contract; or

(B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less towards the premium or subscription share than the amount that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

(b) EXCEPTIONS-

(1) The Department of Defense, without regard to subsection (a) of this section or subsections (a), (b), or (c) of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement, or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter into a contract for the performance of any commercial or industrial type function of the Department of Defense that--

(A) is included on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 47);

(B) is planned to be converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act; or

(C) is planned to be converted to performance by a qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(15)).

(2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469 and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.

(c) TREATMENT OF CONVERSION- The conversion of any activity or function of the Department of Defense under the authority provided by this section shall be credited toward any competitive or outsourcing goal, target, or measurement that may be established by statute, regulation, or policy and is deemed to be awarded under the authority of, and in compliance with, subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, for the competition or outsourcing of commercial activities.

SEC. 8020. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code or a small business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of being allowed additional compensation under section 504 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 430 of title 41, United States Code, this section shall be applicable to any Department of Defense acquisition of supplies or services, including any contract and any subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial items produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any subcontractor or supplier defined in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code or a small business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code: Provided further, That, during the current fiscal year and hereafter, businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small Business Administration pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of Public Law 85-536, as amended, shall have the same status as other program participants under section 602 of Public Law 100-656, 102 Stat. 3825 (Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988) for purposes of contracting with agencies of the Department of Defense.

SEC. 8057. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of national security.
Quote: The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014, 8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

SEC. 1005. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS REVIEW OF DETAINEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
(e) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--

`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or

`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--

`(A) is currently in military custody; or

`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'.

(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.

(B) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien--

(i) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

(ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense.

(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--

(i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence); and

(ii) to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(D) TERMINATION ON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with respect to the claims of an alien under this paragraph shall cease upon the release of such alien from the custody of the Department of Defense.

(3) REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision rendered pursuant to Military Commission Order No. 1, dated August 31, 2005 (or any successor military order).

(B) GRANT OF REVIEW- Review under this paragraph--

(i) with respect to a capital case or a case in which the alien was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, shall be as of right; or

(ii) with respect to any other case, shall be at the discretion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

(C) LIMITATION ON APPEALS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien--

(i) who was, at the time of the proceedings pursuant to the military order referred to in subparagraph (A), detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

(ii) for whom a final decision has been rendered pursuant to such military order.

(D) SCOPE OF REVIEW- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on an appeal of a final decision with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--

(i) whether the final decision was consistent with the standards and procedures specified in the military order referred to in subparagraph (A); and

(ii) to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to reach the final decision is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(4) RESPONDENT- The Secretary of Defense shall be the named respondent in any appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this subsection.

(h) Effective Date-

(1) IN GENERAL- This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Quote: The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.


DIVISION B
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA, 2006
Office of Justice Programs

STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

For an additional amount for `State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance', $125,000,000, for necessary expenses related to the direct or indirect consequences of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in calendar year 2005, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That the Attorney General shall consult with the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives on the allocation of funds prior to expenditure.
Quote: Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law. Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

SEC. 8044. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made available in this Act under the heading `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' to make grants and supplement other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference to accompany the conference report on the bill H.R. 2863, and the projects specified in such guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law.

SEC. 5022. The referenced statement of the managers under the heading `Community development fund' in Public Law 108-447 is amended with respect to item number 145 by striking `Putnam County, Missouri' and inserting `Sullivan County, Missouri'.

SEC. 5023. The statement of the managers correction referenced under the second paragraph of the heading `Community development fund' in title III of Public Law 109-115 (as in effect pursuant to H. Con. Res. 308, 109th Congress) is deemed to be amended--

(1) with respect to item number 65 by striking `$125,000 to Esperanza Mercado Project, California for the Esperanza Community Maple-Mae Project;' and inserting `$125,000 to the Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Los Angeles, California for the Mercado La Paloma project;';

(2) with respect to item number 840 by striking `$100,000 to Gwen's Girls, Inc. in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for construction of a residential facility;' and inserting `$100,000 to the Bloomfield-Garfield Association in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for acquisition and demolition;';

(3) with respect to item number 411 by striking `$200,000 to the City of Holyoke, Massachusetts for renovations of facility for Solutions Development Corporation;' and inserting `$200,000 to Solutions Development Inc. of Holyoke, Massachusetts for facility renovations;';

(4) with respect to item number 314 by striking `$225,000 to the City of Harvey, Illinois for demolition and redevelopment of property to aid the community;' and inserting `$225,000 to the Village of Riverdale, Illinois for planning, design, acquisition, and demolition;';

(5) with respect to item number 715 by striking `39th' and inserting `59th';

(6) with respect to item number 26 by striking `Center' and inserting `College';

(7) with respect to item number 372 by striking `Fairview, Kansas' and inserting `Fairway, Kansas';

(8) with respect to item number 584 by striking `City of Asheville, North Carolina for the renovation of the Asheville Veterans Memorial Stadium' and inserting `UNC Asheville Science and Multimedia Center, City of Asheville, North Carolina for the construction of a new science and multi-media building'; and

(9) with respect to item number 341 by striking `Village of Northfield, IL' and inserting `Northfield Park District of Illinois'.

SEC. 5024. The referenced statement of the managers under the heading `Community development fund' in title II of division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be amended with respect to item 571 by striking `$575,000 to the Metropolitan Development Association in Syracuse, New York for the Essential New York Initiative' and inserting `$200,000 to the Monroe County Industrial Development Agency for streetscape and infrastructure improvements to the Medley Center in the Town of Irondequoit, New York; $90,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for facilities and equipment improvements for the Syracuse Food Bank; $200,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for renovations and infrastructure improvements to the Lofts on Willow Urban Village project; and, $85,000 to Cayuga County, New York for the CIVIC Heritage Historical Society for the construction of a history center;'.
Quote: Certain provisions in the Act purport to allocate funds for specified purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers that accompanied the Act or other Acts; to make changes in statements of managers that accompanied various appropriations bills reported from conferences in the past; or to direct compliance with a committee report. Such provisions include section 8044 in Division A, and sections 5022, 5023, and 5024 and language under the heading "Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations" in Division B, of the Act. Other provisions of the Act, such as sections 8073 and 8082 in Division A, purport to give binding effect to legislative documents not presented to the President. The executive branch shall construe all these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 30, 2005.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:7:./temp/~c109aG6fFu::


This is what I'm talking about.

[John Galt]

I asked for what specific instances have happened. Until you can say what he actually did, do you not have to concede the possibility that the statements are meaningless in at least one way?

Even if he did do something, he didn't have to say he'd construe these things within the power of the executive branch or whatever he said, as the statements are meaningless (doubly do if he never even used them). He could have just done it. So, what DID he do? Not what he said, what he did.

[Medius]

John Galt wrote:
Congress creates laws, the President executes them. But my contention is, in the spirit of Jackson and Jeffersonian departmentalism is that the President can refuse to enforce the law if it violates a higher authority, such as the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that this is true. While you say the President cannot say HOW the funds may be spent, he does have a say whether or not they may be spent, even if he signed the law authorizing their appropriation. He does not have to spend it.

As for an earlier question you asked of me, yes, I did read the signing statements. Now, back to page one I believe regarding a question I asked regarding my last paragraph. Can you refute that the President cannot refuse to spend appropriations that he signed into law?

I understand what you are saying here and while an argument could be made along these lines, I also can't see as how the founders would have intended this. The reason is that it creates an imbalance between the branches. The executive branch represents the will of the majority and the legislative branch carries the voice of both the majority and the minority. By its very nature and indicated by the powers vested, the legislative branch is to have the final word on legislation as it is a better representation of the will of the people.

The president has a veto power, which can then be overriden by congress by a clear showing of majority interest (2/3 vote). By allowing the president to pass and then kill legislation, you give him a new form of veto which cannot be undone by congress. If this was intended, then I don't know why there would be a 2/3 vote check on the executive branch.

While I agree that the president may control the use of the funds, I believe he must attempt to carry through legislation passed by congress to the best of his ability. If there is a question of constitutionality, the legislation should be taken before the supreme court.

It is good and well that we expect from our leaders to protect the constitution and stand on their principles. I do think, however, that there are times where a president must set aside their principles and bend to the will of the people. The president is a public servant, even if a mightily powerful one. In the end, he or she is to answer to the people.

There are times where the will of the people, vested in congress, will conflict with the vision of the president. The people must always win or we do not live under a representative government.

[John Galt]

Medius wrote: John Galt wrote:
Congress creates laws, the President executes them. But my contention is, in the spirit of Jackson and Jeffersonian departmentalism is that the President can refuse to enforce the law if it violates a higher authority, such as the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that this is true. While you say the President cannot say HOW the funds may be spent, he does have a say whether or not they may be spent, even if he signed the law authorizing their appropriation. He does not have to spend it.

As for an earlier question you asked of me, yes, I did read the signing statements. Now, back to page one I believe regarding a question I asked regarding my last paragraph. Can you refute that the President cannot refuse to spend appropriations that he signed into law?

I understand what you are saying here and while an argument could be made along these lines, I also can't see as how the founders would have intended this. The reason is that it creates an imbalance between the branches. The executive branch represents the will of the majority and the legislative branch carries the voice of both the majority and the minority. By its very nature and indicated by the powers vested, the legislative branch is to have the final word on legislation as it is a better representation of the will of the people.

The president has a veto power, which can then be overriden by congress by a clear showing of majority interest (2/3 vote). By allowing the president to pass and then kill legislation, you give him a new form of veto which cannot be undone by congress. If this was intended, then I don't know why there would be a 2/3 vote check on the executive branch.

While I agree that the president may control the use of the funds, I believe he must attempt to carry through legislation passed by congress to the best of his ability. If there is a question of constitutionality, the legislation should be taken before the supreme court.

It is good and well that we expect from our leaders to protect the constitution and stand on their principles. I do think, however, that there are times where a president must set aside their principles and bend to the will of the people. The president is a public servant, even if a mightily powerful one. In the end, he or she is to answer to the people.

There are times where the will of the people, vested in congress, will conflict with the vision of the president. The people must always win or we do not live under a representative government.

Judicial supremacy is not what the founders intended. While the legislature was written as the most powerful of the branches, they were required by law to meet once a year. This means they were not expected to be around much, to write many laws, etc. The executive was the government most of the year, faithfully executing the laws so long as they were in line with the Constitution, which he signed an oath to. He need not wait or listen to the Judiciary for whether or not a law is unconstitutional if he think it not, it is in his capacity has executive to refuse to execute unconstitional laws.

As for the "new veto" which "cannot be overridden" if you note what I quoted about Scalia, the line item "veto" case is important. Scalia chronicles how the President has long been able to refuse to enforce legislation, or refuse to spend appropriations, because of X or Y. What the line item "veto" actually did was allowed Congress to over rule that. But the President has been using discretion since Washington (in the case of funding... budget bills are law). It isn't new...

[Medius]

John Galt wrote: Medius wrote: John Galt wrote:
Congress creates laws, the President executes them. But my contention is, in the spirit of Jackson and Jeffersonian departmentalism is that the President can refuse to enforce the law if it violates a higher authority, such as the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that this is true. While you say the President cannot say HOW the funds may be spent, he does have a say whether or not they may be spent, even if he signed the law authorizing their appropriation. He does not have to spend it.

As for an earlier question you asked of me, yes, I did read the signing statements. Now, back to page one I believe regarding a question I asked regarding my last paragraph. Can you refute that the President cannot refuse to spend appropriations that he signed into law?

I understand what you are saying here and while an argument could be made along these lines, I also can't see as how the founders would have intended this. The reason is that it creates an imbalance between the branches. The executive branch represents the will of the majority and the legislative branch carries the voice of both the majority and the minority. By its very nature and indicated by the powers vested, the legislative branch is to have the final word on legislation as it is a better representation of the will of the people.

The president has a veto power, which can then be overriden by congress by a clear showing of majority interest (2/3 vote). By allowing the president to pass and then kill legislation, you give him a new form of veto which cannot be undone by congress. If this was intended, then I don't know why there would be a 2/3 vote check on the executive branch.

While I agree that the president may control the use of the funds, I believe he must attempt to carry through legislation passed by congress to the best of his ability. If there is a question of constitutionality, the legislation should be taken before the supreme court.

It is good and well that we expect from our leaders to protect the constitution and stand on their principles. I do think, however, that there are times where a president must set aside their principles and bend to the will of the people. The president is a public servant, even if a mightily powerful one. In the end, he or she is to answer to the people.

There are times where the will of the people, vested in congress, will conflict with the vision of the president. The people must always win or we do not live under a representative government.

Judicial supremacy is not what the founders intended. While the legislature was written as the most powerful of the branches, they were required by law to meet once a year. This means they were not expected to be around much, to write many laws, etc. The executive was the government most of the year, faithfully executing the laws so long as they were in line with the Constitution, which he signed an oath to. He need not wait or listen to the Judiciary for whether or not a law is unconstitutional if he think it not, it is in his capacity has executive to refuse to execute unconstitional laws.

As for the "new veto" which "cannot be overridden" if you note what I quoted about Scalia, the line item "veto" case is important. Scalia chronicles how the President has long been able to refuse to enforce legislation, or refuse to spend appropriations, because of X or Y. What the line item "veto" actually did was allowed Congress to over rule that. But the President has been using discretion since Washington (in the case of funding... budget bills are law). It isn't new...

While I agree that in the larger sense that the Supreme Court is not the supreme power on constitutionality, they are the supreme power on enforcement (meaning that they are the final word on whether a defendant is guilty or not in a court). The president has one overruling power on this, which is the pardon.

A 2/3 vote is a very strong vote. I do not believe that a president should have the power to overrule this vote. When you allow the president an avenue through which to cease or alter legislation through their power of enforcement, you leave congress only one option as a recourse: impeachment.

I think one of the most dangerous things we have seen and taken part of in our lifetimes is the allowance of the Executive Branch to expand its powers. The constitution is very clear on what powers are vested in each branch of the government and equally clear where all other powers lie (the states or the people). By allowing any of the branches to expand their powers we are giving up our power. Certainly our Executive branch needs to be strong to make our country strong. It should never be stronger, however, than the people.

[Norrin Radd]

Medius wrote: John Galt wrote: Medius wrote: John Galt wrote:
Congress creates laws, the President executes them. But my contention is, in the spirit of Jackson and Jeffersonian departmentalism is that the President can refuse to enforce the law if it violates a higher authority, such as the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that this is true. While you say the President cannot say HOW the funds may be spent, he does have a say whether or not they may be spent, even if he signed the law authorizing their appropriation. He does not have to spend it.

As for an earlier question you asked of me, yes, I did read the signing statements. Now, back to page one I believe regarding a question I asked regarding my last paragraph. Can you refute that the President cannot refuse to spend appropriations that he signed into law?

I understand what you are saying here and while an argument could be made along these lines, I also can't see as how the founders would have intended this. The reason is that it creates an imbalance between the branches. The executive branch represents the will of the majority and the legislative branch carries the voice of both the majority and the minority. By its very nature and indicated by the powers vested, the legislative branch is to have the final word on legislation as it is a better representation of the will of the people.

The president has a veto power, which can then be overriden by congress by a clear showing of majority interest (2/3 vote). By allowing the president to pass and then kill legislation, you give him a new form of veto which cannot be undone by congress. If this was intended, then I don't know why there would be a 2/3 vote check on the executive branch.

While I agree that the president may control the use of the funds, I believe he must attempt to carry through legislation passed by congress to the best of his ability. If there is a question of constitutionality, the legislation should be taken before the supreme court.

It is good and well that we expect from our leaders to protect the constitution and stand on their principles. I do think, however, that there are times where a president must set aside their principles and bend to the will of the people. The president is a public servant, even if a mightily powerful one. In the end, he or she is to answer to the people.

There are times where the will of the people, vested in congress, will conflict with the vision of the president. The people must always win or we do not live under a representative government.

Judicial supremacy is not what the founders intended. While the legislature was written as the most powerful of the branches, they were required by law to meet once a year. This means they were not expected to be around much, to write many laws, etc. The executive was the government most of the year, faithfully executing the laws so long as they were in line with the Constitution, which he signed an oath to. He need not wait or listen to the Judiciary for whether or not a law is unconstitutional if he think it not, it is in his capacity has executive to refuse to execute unconstitional laws.

As for the "new veto" which "cannot be overridden" if you note what I quoted about Scalia, the line item "veto" case is important. Scalia chronicles how the President has long been able to refuse to enforce legislation, or refuse to spend appropriations, because of X or Y. What the line item "veto" actually did was allowed Congress to over rule that. But the President has been using discretion since Washington (in the case of funding... budget bills are law). It isn't new...

While I agree that in the larger sense that the Supreme Court is not the supreme power on constitutionality, they are the supreme power on enforcement (meaning that they are the final word on whether a defendant is guilty or not in a court). The president has one overruling power on this, which is the pardon.

A 2/3 vote is a very strong vote. I do not believe that a president should have the power to overrule this vote. When you allow the president an avenue through which to cease or alter legislation through their power of enforcement, you leave congress only one option as a recourse: impeachment.

I think one of the most dangerous things we have seen and taken part of in our lifetimes is the allowance of the Executive Branch to expand its powers. The constitution is very clear on what powers are vested in each branch of the government and equally clear where all other powers lie (the states or the people). By allowing any of the branches to expand their powers we are giving up our power. Certainly our Executive branch needs to be strong to make our country strong. It should never be stronger, however, than the people.

What avenues are available for the legislature, or the courts to overrule an executive order or a PDD?

Aren't we now basically being governed by Executive Orders?

[John Galt]

Norrin Radd wrote: Medius wrote: John Galt wrote: Medius wrote: John Galt wrote:
Congress creates laws, the President executes them. But my contention is, in the spirit of Jackson and Jeffersonian departmentalism is that the President can refuse to enforce the law if it violates a higher authority, such as the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that this is true. While you say the President cannot say HOW the funds may be spent, he does have a say whether or not they may be spent, even if he signed the law authorizing their appropriation. He does not have to spend it.

As for an earlier question you asked of me, yes, I did read the signing statements. Now, back to page one I believe regarding a question I asked regarding my last paragraph. Can you refute that the President cannot refuse to spend appropriations that he signed into law?

I understand what you are saying here and while an argument could be made along these lines, I also can't see as how the founders would have intended this. The reason is that it creates an imbalance between the branches. The executive branch represents the will of the majority and the legislative branch carries the voice of both the majority and the minority. By its very nature and indicated by the powers vested, the legislative branch is to have the final word on legislation as it is a better representation of the will of the people.

The president has a veto power, which can then be overriden by congress by a clear showing of majority interest (2/3 vote). By allowing the president to pass and then kill legislation, you give him a new form of veto which cannot be undone by congress. If this was intended, then I don't know why there would be a 2/3 vote check on the executive branch.

While I agree that the president may control the use of the funds, I believe he must attempt to carry through legislation passed by congress to the best of his ability. If there is a question of constitutionality, the legislation should be taken before the supreme court.

It is good and well that we expect from our leaders to protect the constitution and stand on their principles. I do think, however, that there are times where a president must set aside their principles and bend to the will of the people. The president is a public servant, even if a mightily powerful one. In the end, he or she is to answer to the people.

There are times where the will of the people, vested in congress, will conflict with the vision of the president. The people must always win or we do not live under a representative government.

Judicial supremacy is not what the founders intended. While the legislature was written as the most powerful of the branches, they were required by law to meet once a year. This means they were not expected to be around much, to write many laws, etc. The executive was the government most of the year, faithfully executing the laws so long as they were in line with the Constitution, which he signed an oath to. He need not wait or listen to the Judiciary for whether or not a law is unconstitutional if he think it not, it is in his capacity has executive to refuse to execute unconstitional laws.

As for the "new veto" which "cannot be overridden" if you note what I quoted about Scalia, the line item "veto" case is important. Scalia chronicles how the President has long been able to refuse to enforce legislation, or refuse to spend appropriations, because of X or Y. What the line item "veto" actually did was allowed Congress to over rule that. But the President has been using discretion since Washington (in the case of funding... budget bills are law). It isn't new...

While I agree that in the larger sense that the Supreme Court is not the supreme power on constitutionality, they are the supreme power on enforcement (meaning that they are the final word on whether a defendant is guilty or not in a court). The president has one overruling power on this, which is the pardon.

A 2/3 vote is a very strong vote. I do not believe that a president should have the power to overrule this vote. When you allow the president an avenue through which to cease or alter legislation through their power of enforcement, you leave congress only one option as a recourse: impeachment.

I think one of the most dangerous things we have seen and taken part of in our lifetimes is the allowance of the Executive Branch to expand its powers. The constitution is very clear on what powers are vested in each branch of the government and equally clear where all other powers lie (the states or the people). By allowing any of the branches to expand their powers we are giving up our power. Certainly our Executive branch needs to be strong to make our country strong. It should never be stronger, however, than the people.

What avenues are available for the legislature, or the courts to overrule an executive order or a PDD?

Legislate

Quote: Aren't we now basically being governed by Executive Orders?

No, actually we are not.

[John Galt]

Medius wrote: John Galt wrote: Medius wrote: John Galt wrote:
Congress creates laws, the President executes them. But my contention is, in the spirit of Jackson and Jeffersonian departmentalism is that the President can refuse to enforce the law if it violates a higher authority, such as the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that this is true. While you say the President cannot say HOW the funds may be spent, he does have a say whether or not they may be spent, even if he signed the law authorizing their appropriation. He does not have to spend it.

As for an earlier question you asked of me, yes, I did read the signing statements. Now, back to page one I believe regarding a question I asked regarding my last paragraph. Can you refute that the President cannot refuse to spend appropriations that he signed into law?

I understand what you are saying here and while an argument could be made along these lines, I also can't see as how the founders would have intended this. The reason is that it creates an imbalance between the branches. The executive branch represents the will of the majority and the legislative branch carries the voice of both the majority and the minority. By its very nature and indicated by the powers vested, the legislative branch is to have the final word on legislation as it is a better representation of the will of the people.

The president has a veto power, which can then be overriden by congress by a clear showing of majority interest (2/3 vote). By allowing the president to pass and then kill legislation, you give him a new form of veto which cannot be undone by congress. If this was intended, then I don't know why there would be a 2/3 vote check on the executive branch.

While I agree that the president may control the use of the funds, I believe he must attempt to carry through legislation passed by congress to the best of his ability. If there is a question of constitutionality, the legislation should be taken before the supreme court.

It is good and well that we expect from our leaders to protect the constitution and stand on their principles. I do think, however, that there are times where a president must set aside their principles and bend to the will of the people. The president is a public servant, even if a mightily powerful one. In the end, he or she is to answer to the people.

There are times where the will of the people, vested in congress, will conflict with the vision of the president. The people must always win or we do not live under a representative government.

Judicial supremacy is not what the founders intended. While the legislature was written as the most powerful of the branches, they were required by law to meet once a year. This means they were not expected to be around much, to write many laws, etc. The executive was the government most of the year, faithfully executing the laws so long as they were in line with the Constitution, which he signed an oath to. He need not wait or listen to the Judiciary for whether or not a law is unconstitutional if he think it not, it is in his capacity has executive to refuse to execute unconstitional laws.

As for the "new veto" which "cannot be overridden" if you note what I quoted about Scalia, the line item "veto" case is important. Scalia chronicles how the President has long been able to refuse to enforce legislation, or refuse to spend appropriations, because of X or Y. What the line item "veto" actually did was allowed Congress to over rule that. But the President has been using discretion since Washington (in the case of funding... budget bills are law). It isn't new...

While I agree that in the larger sense that the Supreme Court is not the supreme power on constitutionality, they are the supreme power on enforcement (meaning that they are the final word on whether a defendant is guilty or not in a court). The president has one overruling power on this, which is the pardon.

A 2/3 vote is a very strong vote. I do not believe that a president should have the power to overrule this vote. When you allow the president an avenue through which to cease or alter legislation through their power of enforcement, you leave congress only one option as a recourse: impeachment.

I think one of the most dangerous things we have seen and taken part of in our lifetimes is the allowance of the Executive Branch to expand its powers. The constitution is very clear on what powers are vested in each branch of the government and equally clear where all other powers lie (the states or the people). By allowing any of the branches to expand their powers we are giving up our power. Certainly our Executive branch needs to be strong to make our country strong. It should never be stronger, however, than the people.

Yes, the executive has expanded, but fault lies with every branch. The Supreme Court facilitated it. The Legislature approved it. And the Executive just did it. Out came teh fourth branch, the beauracracy...

The people wanted it. It is a shame, but the people WANT these things.

But I still think the President ought to be able to refuse to enforce unconstitutional legislation. Which in my mind includes say, Federal funding of public schools, or farm subsidies, or welfare for the "poor" and a whole host of other legislation that is at best spinned extra-constitutional. Of course that means MOST of the budget which means he probabbly shouldn't have signed it in the first place... but the power is still there...

[Norrin Radd]

Can someone give me an example of an Executive Order being overturned?

The closest I have ever seen was when NGA was ticked off concerning Clitnon's EO on Federalism and pressured him into suspending it. Or course the wording was just changed and then a new EO was signed, so it changed nothing. I have never heard of an EO being changed by legislation, or by any other means. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[John Galt]

Norrin Radd wrote: Can someone give me an example of an Executive Order being overturned?

The closest I have ever seen was when NGA was ticked off concerning Clitnon's EO on Federalism and pressured him into suspending it. Or course the wording was just changed and then a new EO was signed, so it changed nothing. I have never heard of an EO being changed by legislation, or by any other means. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well off the top of my head there was that Steel Seizure case under Truman and recently the Congress attempted to overturn the President's EO on the Stem Cell bill, but the President vetoed that overturning of his directive. I'd have to look into it more but I am not surrounded by my books at the moment.

[Norrin Radd]

John Galt wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Can someone give me an example of an Executive Order being overturned?

The closest I have ever seen was when NGA was ticked off concerning Clitnon's EO on Federalism and pressured him into suspending it. Or course the wording was just changed and then a new EO was signed, so it changed nothing. I have never heard of an EO being changed by legislation, or by any other means. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well off the top of my head there was that Steel Seizure case under Truman and recently the Congress attempted to overturn the President's EO on the Stem Cell bill, but the President vetoed that overturning of his directive. I'd have to look into it more but I am not surrounded by my books at the moment.

I have not seen a single example of an EO being overturned, but I thank you for replying.

Please let me know if you learn of any examples, as I would be interested in knowing this.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

John Galt wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Can someone give me an example of an Executive Order being overturned?

The closest I have ever seen was when NGA was ticked off concerning Clitnon's EO on Federalism and pressured him into suspending it. Or course the wording was just changed and then a new EO was signed, so it changed nothing. I have never heard of an EO being changed by legislation, or by any other means. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well off the top of my head there was that Steel Seizure case under Truman and recently the Congress attempted to overturn the President's EO on the Stem Cell bill, but the President vetoed that overturning of his directive. I'd have to look into it more but I am not surrounded by my books at the moment.

Was there a Statement of Signing attributable to the Stem Cell Legislation?
The President's Veto of that legislation is the one Bill he followed the direction under the Constitution on,
which most likely contained His OBJECTION.