Bush's poll numbers drop into the 20s

[Drake Tungsten]

Congress can't sue the Pres to enforce a bill.

They can't?

Nope (well, let me rephrase: they can sue

Lawyers...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's not a political question, it's a Constitutional question. The President is not enforcing the law passed by Congress.

That's basically the definition of a political question ruling. The President and Congress are having a spat over their relative powers, the Judiciary isn't going to take sides due to seperation of powers.

As to standing, wouldn't the fact that they're Congress and they passed the law be enough?

Not even close. Standing requires actual harm to be done or will be done by the law to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must suffer (or will imminently suffer) an actual injury due to the law, the harm complained of is caused by defendant, and the court can redress the harm.

Congress does not suffer any actual injury here and in any case where Congress has sued the President for not enforcing the law (or leaving a treaty unilaterally), the court has made that clear.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Congress can't sue the Pres to enforce a bill.

They can't?

Nope (well, let me rephrase: they can sue

Lawyers...

When most people say X can sue Y, they mean that X has a chance of winning the case through suit. They don't make the distinction of having the right to sue and actually having a semi-valid case.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's basically the definition of a political question ruling. The President and Congress are having a spat over their relative powers, the Judiciary isn't going to take sides due to seperation of powers.

The powers of Congress and the President aren't Constitutional issues?

Not even close. Standing requires actual harm to be done or will be done by the law to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must suffer (or will imminently suffer) an actual injury due to the law, the harm complained of is caused by defendant, and the court can redress the harm.

Congress does not suffer any actual injury here and in any case where Congress has sued the President for not enforcing the law (or leaving a treaty unilaterally), the court has made that clear.

Eh, ok. Though I'm confirming all this with my dad tomorrow

[KrazyHorse]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Imran's right.

[KrazyHorse]

One post
Two post
Red post
Blue post

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's basically the definition of a political question ruling. The President and Congress are having a spat over their relative powers, the Judiciary isn't going to take sides due to seperation of powers.

The powers of Congress and the President aren't Constitutional issues?

Not even close. Standing requires actual harm to be done or will be done by the law to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must suffer (or will imminently suffer) an actual injury due to the law, the harm complained of is caused by defendant, and the court can redress the harm.

Congress does not suffer any actual injury here and in any case where Congress has sued the President for not enforcing the law (or leaving a treaty unilaterally), the court has made that clear.

Eh, ok. Though I'm confirming all this with my dad tomorrow

The powers of Congress and the President are BOTH Constitutional issues and, in disputes among the branches over wielding of power, political questions. The judiciary in such cases will punt, saying that is for the branches to decide among themselves.

Your dad will tell you the same thing... it is well established.

[Drake Tungsten]

When most people say X can sue Y, they mean that X has a chance of winning the case through suit. They don't make the distinction of having the right to sue and actually having a semi-valid case.

Whatever you say man...

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ned]

Imran, you got it right. The Supremes will stay out of a spat between Congress and the Pres. Congress always has a remedy, impeachment, if they think the president has gone too far. That is what they did to the first president Johnson.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Like Fallujah?

The point here is whether Bush at any time said that the war was over as the left constantly says he did. Mistaking and mis-characterizing Bush's positions is a pernicious leftist habit.