Bush tells Larry King that Ken Lay was a *good guy*

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

They were talking about the idea of implementing a stimulus package for (in particular) the auto industry. Well, turns out that they have already been trying to pass a stimulus package and I'll give you one guess as to who's blocking that. In the meantime if the auto industry goes down that's another 2-3 million jobs. Nice going Bush!

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.

Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]

I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.

I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.

[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).

[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).

Regardless of who 'WINS' in November, we ALL win in January when we get to watch that crook leave OUR WhiteHouse...

History will show he was the all time worst, and that Americans, the American media, and the Congress ALLOWED him to trash our Constitution and raid our treasury to pay for fake wars for 8 years. We are all responsible.

Sen. Craig loses appeal in airport sex sting case

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) � Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has lost his latest attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting.

A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Republican's bid to toss out his disorderly conduct conviction.

Craig was arrested in June 2007 in a Minneapolis airport bathroom stall by an undercover officer who said the senator solicited sex.

He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor and paid a fine, but changed his mind after word of his arrest became public. Craig insisted he was innocent, but the case effectively ended his political career.

Craig's attorney argued before the appeals court this September that there was insufficient evidence for any judge to find him guilty. Prosecutors said his guilty plea should stand.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iM7VsmCI91xXDASkhgtGf3_zk__gD94V9JQ00

and I don;t like that in anyone. Bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc. Don't like a hypocrite. What I really do not like, which is not actually her fault, is the fact that she is being foisted on us like she is so exceptional and we are lucky to have her. I don't think a woman whose main goal in life was to a sports reporter on TV has the brilliance and love of country we need in a leader. To be able to state with a straight face that she can see Russia from Alaska qualifies as foreigh policy experience is an insult to my intelligence. She entered a beauty contest and then wanted to coast along on her looks by looking pretty and reading a teleprompter on TV. That is just not a combination worthy of such a high office.

First, it tells me that he has an excellent work ethic. He worked very hard to be the best lawyer he could be, which leads me to believe if he were President, he'd work just as hard to be the best President he could be. In my opinion, Bush has NO ethics -- work or otherwise.

Secondly, it tells me that I don't believe in popularity contests. If he won or lost his own state is irrelevant to me. I respected what the man had to say, and the thought of a President Edwards over a President Bush has been looking better and better on a daily basis every day for the last year. If we can't have a leader who has firsthand experience as a combat veteran in a foreign war, then the next best thing is to have one who actually HAD to work for a living, someone who went from being poor to being rich by virtue of hard work and dedication, instead of someone being born, as Ann Richards once said, with a silver foot in his mouth.

As far as bankrupting any STATE, the most damage Edwards could have done was to decrease some PROFITS of insurance companies (easily recouped by raising malpractice insurance rates). I doubt he did any financial harm to the state. Because of him and his lawsuits, though, there might be a few more doctors practicing CARE now when they practice medicine. Don't forget. Million dollar verdicts are handed down by juries, peers of plaintiffs, in these matters. Maybe you think it's okay for doctors to get richer and richer as a result of getting sloppier and sloppier, but I don't. Negligence should be punished. That's what punitive damages are for. If the lawsuits were meritless, they would have been thrown out of court. Simple as that.

The third thing it tells me is that I'm entitled to my liberal opinion, on the LIBERAL BOARD, whether CONSERVATIVES like it or not.

Bush Quietly Says No Need Follow Patriot Act Oversight Measure

White House Says Signing Statement Is Normal and Constitutional

Analysis
By GEORGE SANCHEZ

March 24, 2006 � - When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents.

The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress.

However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers.

After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement, an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.

Presidential Power in Question

In doing so, it appears the president once again cited his constitutional authority to bypass the law under certain circumstances.

For example, after The New York Times reported last year that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, the president said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.

When Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in U.S. custody, Bush signed off on it but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.

Bush's actions have provoked increased grumbling in Congress from both parties. Lawmakers have pointed out that the Constitution gave the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute them.

On Thursday Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, took issue with Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act. He said it represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.

''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, Leahy said. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. Leahy voted against renewing the Patriot Act this year after sponsoring the bill back in 2001.

The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required.

''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven inspector general reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act's renewal was viewed as a rare victory for the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 280-138 after the Senate passed the controversial bill 89-10.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/phil-gingrey-gop-congress_n_161964.html