| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2006 07:00:46 PM |
| Object: |
Taking the President to Court |
Taking the President to Court
By Congressman John Conyers
The DailyKos.com
Thursday 27 April 2006
As some of you may be aware, according to the President and
Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both the
Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth grade civics
lesson, forget the book they give you when you visit Congress - "How
Our Laws Are Made," and forget Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and
balances, Republican-style.
As the Washington Post reported last month, as the Republican
budget bill struggled to make its way through Congress at the end of
last year and beginning of this year (the bill cuts critical programs
such as student loans and Medicaid funding), the House and Senate
passed different versions of it. House Republicans did not want to
make Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so
they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as the House
bill and sent it to the President. The President, despite warnings
that the bill did not represent the consensus of the House and
Senate, simply shrugged and signed the bill anyway. Now, the
Administration is implementing it as though it was the law of the
land.
Several public interest groups have sought to stop some parts of
the bill from being implemented, under the theory that the bill is
unconstitutional. However, getting into the weeds a bit, they have
lacked the ability to stop the entire bill. To seek this recourse,
the person bringing the suit must have what is called "standing,"
that is they must show they were injured or deprived of some right.
Because the budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is
difficult for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill.
Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of it.
After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts
in the nation, I determined that one group of people are injured by
the entire bill: Members of the House. We were deprived of our right
to vote on a bill that is now being treated as the law of the land.
So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic Colleagues
(list appended at the bottom of this diary), I plan to file suit
tomorrow in federal district court in Detroit against the President,
members of the Cabinet and other federal officers seeking to have a
simple truth confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is
not a law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill
cannot be treated as the law of the land.
As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at the
erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether through the
Patriot Act, the President's Secret Domestic Spying program, or
election irregularities and disenfranchisement, our fundamental
freedoms are being taken away. Nothing to me is more stark than this,
however. If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass a
law, what's next?
The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I would
note that I did not invite every Member of the House to join in the
suit, and I am certain many, many more Members would have joined if
asked. However, this was not possible for various arcane legal
reasons.
The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking Member on
the Energy and Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Ranking
Member on the Ways and Means Committee; Rep. George Miller, Ranking
Member on the Education and Workforce Committee; Rep. James L.
Oberstar, Ranking Member on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee; Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member on the Financial
Services Committee; Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Ranking Member on the
Agriculture Committee; Rep. Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member on the
Homeland Security Committee; Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member
on the Rules Committee; Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, Ranking Member on
the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown,
Representing Ohio's 13th District.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042706R.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
28 Apr 2006 05:55:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:00:46 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jgkeegan-74AB9C.20004627042006@individual.net> wrote:
Off topic spam.
What does this have to do with abortion or the Freedom of Choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
28 Apr 2006 06:10:40 AM |
|
|
In article <54t352lgqsv264tnglknppl0ufd9r0tc25@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:00:46 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jgkeegan-74AB9C.20004627042006@individual.net> wrote:
Off topic spam.
What does this have to do with abortion or the Freedom of Choice?
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
do you feel like a hypocrite criticizing others for doing what you
do? even osprey has legitimately commented on your hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
27 Apr 2006 07:11:29 PM |
|
|
What are the charges?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
27 Apr 2006 07:19:02 PM |
|
|
On 2006-04-27 17:11:29 -0700, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> said:
What are the charges?
Treason?
High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
27 Apr 2006 08:01:06 PM |
|
|
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006042717190216807%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2006-04-27 17:11:29 -0700, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> said:
What are the charges?
Treason?
High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Got any specifics you know of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
27 Apr 2006 08:23:42 PM |
|
|
On 2006-04-27 18:01:06 -0700, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> said:
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006042717190216807%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2006-04-27 17:11:29 -0700, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> said:
What are the charges?
Treason?
High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Got any specifics you know of?
Lies, wiretaps, pretextual war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking the President to Court |
27 Apr 2006 08:26:36 PM |
|
|
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006042718234216807%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2006-04-27 18:01:06 -0700, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> said:
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006042717190216807%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2006-04-27 17:11:29 -0700, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> said:
What are the charges?
Treason?
High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Got any specifics you know of?
Lies, wiretaps, pretextual war.
Hmm. You wanna do another 'deepthroat', Watergate impeachment proceeding?
LOL!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
