"A Clinton-Obama Presidental Bid?"

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

I workfor an agency. So, yes, I get it. I'm not saying that agencies are laws unto themselves; but I am saying that they have broad latitude to establish and implement policy (and, even when directed by detailed legislation, have a broad role in helping craft such legislation).

I know you work for State. You gave the impression of not realizing the degree of congressional involvement in the running of domestic agencies.

Well, yes:



That's the opening of this extensive article on the practice.

thats still mainly controversial stuff related to constitutional questions, not the day to day policy stuff of bread and butter domestic issues.

[lord of the mark]

nm

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
That is the clearest showing of impeachable offenses I have seen against any U.S. President, ever!

Too bad Cheney is Vice President.

If Congress passes a law the unconstitutionally encroaches on Presidential power, the President isn't obligated to obey or enforce it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I know you work for State. You gave the impression of not realizing the degree of congressional involvement in the running of domestic agencies.

I work for Labor... and I think Rufus is more spot on than you are on this. Sure Congressional input is very important. Every once in a while, they'll pass some big law that'll change a bunch of stuff, but its usually done with a LOT of Executive Branch involvement and will involve a ton of recommendations by the departments. Add to that, most of the changes we do are done through our department, and I'd say that the executive branch has a very strong effect on domestic policy making.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If Congress passes a law the unconstitutionally encroaches on Presidential power, the President isn't obligated to obey or enforce it.

Leaving aside the fact that trusting Bush to determine constitutionality seems deeply misguided, this simply isn't so. The President is obliged to either execute the law or, though the solicitor general, challenge its constitutionality. Bush has done neither. He's just issued executive proclamations modifying the laws as passed. That's a far bigger constitutionality issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If Congress passes a law the unconstitutionally encroaches on Presidential power, the President isn't obligated to obey or enforce it.

Um... that's why the President has veto power. There is no rule saying he has to sign whatever law comes before him.

[Kuciwalker]

There's no rule saying that by signing a law he acknowledges all of it is constitutional, either. In fact, that's the entire point of signing statements.

There's no rule saying that Congress overriding a veto makes a law constitutional, either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a question on whether signing statements are constitutional themselves. Of course if a President refuses to enforce a law, that's a court matter... and usually it becomes a political question case.

But Rufus is correct in the the proper course of action is challenging the law with the solicitor general.

[Kuciwalker]

There's no [valid] scandal with Bush not enforcing laws he deems unconstitutional unless someone demonstrates that they really are constitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course there is... unless you also claim that there is no valid scandal with Congress passing an unconstitutional law unless someone (ie, the courts) demonstrates that it is indeed unconstitutional.

FTR, I doubt that Bush really thinks he's not enforcing unconstitutional laws... he just doesn't want to be constrained by a meddling Congress.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course there is... unless you also claim that there is no valid scandal with Congress passing an unconstitutional law unless someone (ie, the courts) demonstrates that it is indeed unconstitutional.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the courts have to demonstrate it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's no rule saying that by signing a law he acknowledges all of it is constitutional, either. In fact, that's the entire point of signing statements.

Actually, the Constitution, which is vague on so much, is crystal clear on what a president is supposed to do when he doesn't like parts of a law. Per Article I Section 7:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Not what Shrub is doing; he's just signing the law, then announcing which parts he's going to ignore.

[onodera]

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Look, the Constitution explicitly states here the President is male, so Ms. Clinton cannot become one or at least sign the bills.

[SpencerH]

Clinton/Obama. What a great idea I'd love to see it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Actually, the Constitution, which is vague on so much, is crystal clear on what a president is supposed to do when he doesn't like parts of a law. Per Article I Section 7:

1) The President can approve of a bill in general but object to small sections in particular (espcially with very large bills).

2) I don't think you can argue from that that the President is obligated to veto a bill he thinks is partly unconstitutional.

Not what Shrub is doing; he's just signing the law, then announcing which parts he's going to ignore.

Or announcing which parts are illegal and either can't legally be passed be Congress or can't legally be enforced by him. Of course, you chose the wording with the most negative possible slant, so I did the opposite.