Jack's posts with tag: cotus

What are tags? You can give your posts a "tag", which is like a keyword. Tags help you find content which has something in common. You can assign as many tags as you wish to each post.
View posts by people in your network with tag cotus
Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
03/15/2006 @ 12:58 pm
Filed by RAW STORY

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.
Advertisement

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.

The full text of the letter follows:

March 15, 2006

The Honorable Andrew Card

Chief of Staff

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Card:

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.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

Enclosure

[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).

[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, ? 7.


Blog EntryCOTUS: Bye, Bye, ByeMar 17, '06 12:04 PM
for everyone

The Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006

Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 08:40:44 AM PDT

Meet the four horsemen of the Constitutional apocalypse: Republican Senators Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Hagel.  "Apocalypse, what hyperbole!" you say.  But how else to label the fact that these four Senators will bring to the Senate a billowing white flag of surrender, and a crown for their King?

Yesterday, these four Senators introduced the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006."  The bill would legalize the President's crimes.  It would allow this Congress to rubber-stamp the administration's violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment by condoning warrantless spying.  According to their ass-backwards approach to oversight, the President can continue to spy on Americans without a warrant for 45 days.  After 45 days, the President has three choices:

    1. "Stop" the spying: Because naturally, we can trust this government to cease and desist on demand, given its amazing track record of self-restraint;
    2. Ask the FISA court for a court order: Because naturally, this President has shown great respect for the FISA court process and would dutifully follow Congressional directives when it comes to applying for a FISA order; or
    3. Inform the Intelligence Sub-committee:  Because, of course, the President has proven he can be trusted to follow the law and notify intelligence activities about warrantless spying.

The bill is co-sponsored by four so-called "moderates" in order to hide its radical and catastrophic nature.  What these four extremists accomplish with their bill is to amend the Constitution unilaterally--without the consent of the states--by nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Warrant? Reasonable cause? Psssh. Remnants of a pre-9/11 world, my friends.

Their bill, by making congressional notification optional, also effectively repeals the National Security Act of 1947, which requires the President keep the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities."  If the administration does chose to inform the Intelligence Sub-Committee, the members on that committee cannot disclose any abuses they may learn of.  They can't order the government to stop the spying and they can't hold the government accountable for any abuses.  Their mouths are sealed shut. Their hands are bound with inaction.  They can do nothing but serve as audience for an all-powerful King.  As Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter commented, this bill lets the administration "do whatever the hell it wants."  And this is "oversight"? The sadder question that needs to be asked is is this America anymore?

So, let's review, shall we? Striking out part of the Bill of Rights? Check.  Unfettered Executive authority to conduct massive, intrusive spying on Americans in secret? Check.  A paralyzed Congress bound, blindfolded and gagged? Check. Establishing the precedent that the President can flat-out ignore the law of the land? Check.  A Congress filled with Rubber-Stamp Republicans who couldn't give a shit about the rule of law as long as they make this scandal go away? Check.

A constitutional catastrophe doesn't look to hyperbolic now, does it?

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS and tell them to reject the DeWine bill, and to support censure instead.



© 2008 Multiply, Inc.    About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Corp Info · Contact Us · Help