ThinkFast: January 19, 2007
ThinkFast: January 19, 2007
Rich Little, the comedian chosen by the White House Correspondents Association to headline the annual correspondents dinner, has been told by organizers of the event that “they don’t want a repeat of last year’s” performance by Stephen Colbert.” “They don’t want anyone knocking the president. He’s really over the coals right now, and he’s worried about his legacy,” Little said. “I won’t even mention the word ‘Iraq.’”
$8.4 billion: The cost of the Iraq war per month. “The Pentagon has been estimating last year’s costs for the increasingly unpopular war at about $8 billion a month. It rose from a monthly ‘burn rate’ of about $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003.”
In a 96-2 vote, the Senate yesterday approved an ethics reform package. Conservatives agreed to support the bill only after forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to schedule a vote granting line-item veto power to the President.
The New York Times reports that while details about the Bush administration’s shift on warrantless spying remain “sketchy,” critics believe “one goal of the new arrangements was to derail lawsuits challenging the program in conventional federal courts.”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in the country’s nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.”
Ten major companies — including General Electric, DuPont, and Alcoa — “have banded together with leading environmental groups to call for a firm nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years.”
The Medicare prescription drug program increased U.S. drug sales by $2.5 billion in 2006, bolstering earnings at Pfizer Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc. as well as other pharmaceutical and insurance companies. “Purchases under the benefit, offered through the Medicare health program for the elderly for the first time last year, accounted for one-sixth of the growth in sales.”
The House yesterday capped its “100 Hours” agenda with the passage of an energy bill repealing tax breaks for big oil companies, marking “the sixth piece of legislation approved in two weeks.”
And finally: “Hi, I’m Art Buchwald, and I just died.” Famed Washington humorist Art Buchwald passed away yesterday, but he leaves on a funny note. Watch his video goodbye at the New York Times, and his farewell column in today’s Washington Post.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Rich who??? lol
January 19th, 2007 at 9:12 amSo Mr. Little, don’t tell the Emperor he has no clothes.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:13 amThe eeevil liberal media conspiracy strikes again!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:19 amAw gee, don’t hurt the spoiled little frat-boy’s feelings…
What a baby.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am“They don’t want anyone knocking the president. He’s really over the coals right now, and he’s worried about his legacy,â€
And you thought NIXON was paranoid?
January 19th, 2007 at 9:28 amAdmin. Change of Policy
Since they changed their minds about wiretapping for no apparent reason, once they get the cases thrown out of court, what’s to prevent them from changing their minds again?
Gonzales was very specific about few things in his comments yesterday. One of those things was that, despite the change, he felt that the President’s plan was legal.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:29 amIf Bushiva is granted a line item veto…
… every member of the senate who votes FOR it…
…should be checked for rabies, then exiled to the gulag of OUR choice…
…Harry Reid looks like he’s going to be problematic…
…caving-in to repulsivescum is NOT what we elected Democrats to take over the government to do…
…use the Patriot Act to:
INVESTIGATE
IMPEACH
INCARCERATE
IMPOUND
…against all Bushite repulsivescum TRAITORS!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:30 amIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in the country’s nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.â€
But it is ok for India to develop nuclear technology. Iran doesn’t play well with Israel, though, so no nuclear ANYTHING for you!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:31 amRich Little sez:
Yes, of course, Rich…God forbid a little thing like FREE SPEECH be practiced in our country…after all, Chimpy’s ‘worried about his legacy’.
Well, Rich, your unwillingness to practice your right of free speech, even going so far as to ‘not even mention the word ‘Iraq’, is in itself a most eloquent testimony as to just how bad it has gotten here in the ‘land of the free’.
Nice ‘legacy’, Chimpy.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:31 amNo Challenge for Chimpie
Oh, and don’t tell me Rich (I didn’t know he was still alive) Little is this year’s host. Not surprised, isn’t he an ‘ol right winger anyway who won’t challenge Dumbya. It just goes on and on.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:31 amIn a 96-2 vote, the Senate yesterday approved an ethics reform package. Conservatives agreed to support the bill only after forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to schedule a vote granting line-item veto power to the President.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:33 amWhy was there pressure for the line item veto? He can just issue a signing statement anyway! Good grief!
Someone should start a running list of Republican filibusters. The first one on the list is the filibuster of Ethics Reform.
Welcome to bi-partisanship, Republican style.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:39 amReally shows how out of touch with reality this administration is having Rich freakin’ Little to host Press dinner. I thought he fell off the face of the Earth in like 1986. I hope Chimpy enjoys his good clean wholesome entertainment while Americans continue to be killed for his lies and the bottom line of corporate interests.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:45 amGeorge shouldn’t be worried about his legacy. He is to go down as the WPE (Worst President Ever). It’s not even close.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:48 amQuestion about the line-item veto:
Didn’t the supreme court rule that the line-item veto was unconstitutional back in 1998? I thought the only way it could be implemented was through a constitutional amendment. That’s what this article from June of 1998 says:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
January 19th, 2007 at 9:50 amIn a 96-2 vote, the Senate yesterday approved an ethics reform package. Conservatives agreed to support the bill only after forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to schedule a vote granting line-item veto power to the President.
The line item veto has already been passed, signed into law, and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court who said, I believe, that they did not have the constitutional authority to write such a law (as opposed to it being okay but done incorrectly this time). McConnel was among thoise in Congress when it happened, so this is not news to him. What I don’t understand is why he was threatening to hold up a vote on ethics because he demanded an unconstitutional law be passed? How does that not violate his own oath to “support and defend the Constitution”? Perhaps another amendment to the Constitution is needed to make it an impeachable offense for a lawmaker to knowingly introduce unconstitutional legislation (as they should have known tis was.)
January 19th, 2007 at 9:50 amRich Little could do a scathing commentary on Bush and Iraq by impersonating Nixon and having Nixon’s persona congratulate Bush for keeping those brown people in their place and doing his best to keep the population of the world under control by killing off so many of the Muslims in Iraq. Unfortunately, Rich Little will never have the courage to be mistaken for Lenny Bruce or even Stephen Colbert.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amThe so-called “liberal media” strikes again!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:58 amPreemptive censorship, so the boy-king won’t have his feelings hurt, or suffer an embarrassing joke about his incompetence, his lies, and his abuses of power.
“I won’t even mention the word ‘Iraq.’â€
Jeepers Crow — FU Little. Tell that to all Men and Women who have been killed and maimed for this God Forsaken War. What the hell is wrong with this country?
January 19th, 2007 at 9:58 amIts good to be back. Good morning, everybody.
“They don’t want anyone knocking the president. He’s really over the coals right now, and he’s worried about his legacy,†Little said. “I won’t even mention the word ‘Iraq.’â€
Lets see. If that happens in Cuba, thats a repressive regime. If that happens in the US, its patriotic… Ok, then.
Ten major companies — including General Electric, DuPont, and Alcoa — “have banded together with leading environmental groups to call for a firm nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years.â€
January 19th, 2007 at 9:59 amWhat for if there is not “global warming”? Anyway, not good enough. A study from UK, the RCEP showed that 60% reduction from 1998 CO2 levels should be made by 2050 for that country in order to fight Climate Change and UK is one of the most unadvanced countries in Europe regarding this matter.
There’s a big difference between allowing an issue to come to vote and having the votes to make it pass. Quite a big difference in fact. Many things are brought to vote specifically for the purpose of killing them.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:01 amHow could the washington press corp be any more sycophantic?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:02 amThis seems to be pretty significant news:
Exclusive: Pelosi Won’t Block Funding to Stop Iraq Troop Surge, Even Though Situation
Jan. 19, 2007 — There may be a growing battle between Congress and President Bush over the Iraq War strategy, but new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won’t block funding for additional troops.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:07 amABC News
“On Wednesday, the Bush administration said it was opposed to raising corporate tax rates on the oil industry when other manufacturing industries had benefited from the same rate reduction. ”
Yes, but are the manufacturing industries enjoying BILLIONS in profits per quarter? This war profiteering must cease NOW.
Thank you, Democratic Congress! It’s about time these idiots saw how its done!
January 19th, 2007 at 10:13 amIt was actually clever for Reid to let the republiscums include a line-item veto vote in order to get his ethics reform bill passed. The line-item veto power has already been struck down by the Supreme Court so any attempt to use it would be unconstitutional.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:13 amRich Little could do pretty much whatever he wants once he gets up there. What are they gonna do to him? The guy’s what, 80 years old?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:26 amHis legacy ?? He should be worrying about impeachment instead !!
January 19th, 2007 at 10:27 am#16 Wayne,
There is a difference between the line-item veto struck down in 1998 and the proposed line-item veto. The previous line-item veto exercised by President Clinton allowed the president to simply cancel and strike out certain spending provisions passed by Congress. This is what was ruled unconstitutional. The new bill provides that the president may identify or point out certain provisions that he or she believes should be eliminated and then send those provisions back to Congress for a vote on whether or not to rescind those provisons. The Congressional Research Service took a look at this proposal and concluded it could very well pass constititutional muster with the courts.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:30 amWhite House Correspondent’s Association — burnt out and ought to be thrown out.
Rich Little — sell out.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am“Hi, I’m Art Buchwald, and I just died.â€
What a funny guy. Great last column. Rest in Peace, Mr Buchwald.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amI started to see the bloody handwriting on the wall — when Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, months ago. WTF! Now, the Dems just go ahead and ok funding for more troops. This is complete insanity. Just like the 1st Amendment Bill and the 9/11 Bill.
What are the Dem? Just another branch of The War Party? What the hell is happening?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:39 amGuess how long the 100 hrs agenda took?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am42.
Ha, take that, old Do Nothing Congress.
In response to Kay,
Pelosi wrote a piece for Huff-Po today.
Progress is Possible Again
January 19th, 2007 at 10:48 amAnti-First Amendment S.1 Passes Congress
Kurt Nimmo | January 19, 2007
It was bad enough George Bush Senior found it necessary to blame bloggers for creating what he deems an “adversarial and ugly climate†(never mind his particular bit of ugliness in Iraq more than a decade ago, eventually resulting in the murder of more than a million people), last month we had the Manchurian candidate, John McCain, introducing legislation “that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web,†as Paul Joseph Watson writes for Prison Planet.
Since Watson wrote his piece about McCain’s anti-First Amendment bill, Richard A. Viguerie has warned that Congress is attempting the silence bloggers and other critics of the government. “We have the First Amendment right to speak and urge citizens to contact Washington—without the intimidation inherent in federal regulation of our activities.â€
Of course, as a Republican partisan, Viguerie concentrates on Pelosi and the Democrats while quite naturally ignoring Bush and the neocons. But even so, his warning about Section 220 of S. 1, a lobbying reform bill that went before the Senate should not go unheeded—it will “require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself,†according to Viguerie.
It’s comical, in a perverse sort of way, that Democrats and Republican—turn them upside down, they all look the same—are “bitterly split on … how to clean up the scandal-rocked U.S. Congress,†according to the Washington Post. Never mind that Congress is basically a whorehouse of corporate and political special interests and such a bill would not touch most of them.
Republicans are not opposed to the “bipartisan bill to revamp the Senate’s ethics and lobbying rules†because it is a slap in the face to the First Amendment, but rather because they want to include a “line item veto†provision that would further consolidate Bush’s unitary decidership. “Attaching an unrelated measure to this bipartisan bill is an obvious attempt to derail passage of the strongest ethics reform legislation,†complained Democrats Russ Feingold and Barack Obama, the presidential wanna-be.
As noted here last week, Democrats made sure to set up a special loophole, called an “ethics exemption,†for their friends. “A major loophole in the Democrats’ recently unveiled ethics package will allow non-profit arms of controversial lobbying organizations to fund travel excursions for members of Congress,†Raw Story reported earlier this month. Pelosi and crew designed this “loophole†specifically for AIPAC and the Aspen Institute, a Rockefeller and Carnegie globalist crime syndicate.
Not that opposition matters. “The Senate, responding to voter frustration with corruption and special interest influence in Washington, on Thursday overwhelmingly approved far-reaching ethics and lobbying reform legislation,†reports Time. “Under the bill, passed 96-2, senators will give up gifts and free travel from lobbyists, pay more for travel on corporate jets and make themselves more accountable for the pet projects they insert into bills.â€
No mention here of the fact “Pelosi & Company’s lobbying legislation ‘reform’ would define political communications to and even between citizens as ‘lobbying.’ This turns the definition of lobbying on its head and is in violation of the First Amendment,†according to Viguerie. “Moreover, their legislation would treat grassroots activists more harshly than the K Street lobbyists and the big corporations and unions. They get loopholes that the smallest critics using the Internet wouldn’t enjoy. Communicating to as few as 500 people would trigger the registration and quarterly reporting to Congress…. In truth, the grassroots legislation would help protect corruption in Washington by silencing critics and diminishing the ability of grassroots causes to communicate with the general public.â€
But the Democrats, portrayed as our saviors during the last election cycle, are not finished. “As the new Democratic majority continues its 100-hour legislative blitz in the U.S. House, one Democrat has quietly reintroduced controversial legislation that would give the federal government more authority over so-called ‘hate crimes,’†the Cybercast News Service reported on January 16. “This is the most dangerous legislation ever to come before Congress,†warns Rev. Ted Pike. “It leads directly to an end of free speech. Once free speech is gone, there is little to prevent the loss of all our other freedoms. The new Democrat-controlled Congress has all the votes it needs to quickly run this Orwellian bill through committee in the House and Senate and pass it.â€
In 1936, Nikolai Bukharin crafted the Soviet Constitution, which promised freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religious worship, and the inviolability of individuals, their home and the privacy of their correspondence. Stalin claimed to support the constitution, even as he arrested thousands of dissidents opposed to the government. In total, millions of people were imprisoned and killed, most of them for opposing Stalin, including Nikolai Bukharin, the founder of the Soviet Constitution.
In America, the government claims to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights while passing legislation designed to curtail if not eliminate our liberty. Is it possible, in the months ahead, as both Pike and Viguerie warn, the government will, under the direction of a Democrat Congress, begin a momentous process that may eventually result in the sort of massive crimes Stalin inflicted on the people of the Soviet Union?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:52 amsam seder is talking to a caller about this pelosi story…
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amsam says she did NOT say that – ABC is reporting it wrong …
imagine that…
#31
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amYou are so right. I am wondering if the 100 hours meausres are just to keep us lefties looking “over there” to be “apeased” so that the “business as usual” (corruption, destruction of constitution) in Washington regarding the “big” issues can be ignored. Power is power, and people want to keep it (dems included). They have their agendas, too. Focusing too much on the ‘08 elections is why we are not going to see accountability for the past and meaningful legislation for the present.
#28 Exley,
I don’t know who this “Congressional Research Service” is (are they privately run and funded or are they paid by taxpayers?), but I think they’re wrong. Even allowing the president to strike certian provisions and demand a re-vote on them would be giving the presidential legislation-writing powers, and that’s unconstitutional.
The constitution is clear: Either sign the whole thing into law or veto the whole thing, there is no in-between. Any attempt to get around it is just an attempt to get around the plain meaning and clear intent of the framers. At least, that’s how I see it. Partisans may disagree, but not using logic.
Besides, other than saying that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, the constitution does not give either branch the authority to treat any one law differently from another. Nothing in it gives the president the right to veto parts of a bill. (What if he vetoed it because he wanted the word “not” put in or removed?) The framers never intended the president to be able to “partially veto” any bill, so any attemot to give him this power legislatively would be unconstitutional.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amBloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, January 18, 2007
You’d be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn’t. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.
Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:
“Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.”
In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.
Under current law any ‘lobbyist” who ‘knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.” quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.
The amendment is currently on hold.
This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain’s proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards.
McCain’s proposal is presented under the banner of saving children from sexual predators and encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.
Despite a total lack of any evidence that children are being victimized en mass by bloggers or people who leave comments on blog sites, it seems likely that the proposal will become legislation in some form. It is well known that McCain has a distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and further lead it down a path of strict control has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs:
During an appearance with his wife Barbara on Fox News last November, George Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an “adversarial and ugly climate.”
- The White House’s own recently de-classified strategy for “winning the war on terror” targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to “diminish” their influence.
- The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.
- In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a “terror training camp,” through which “disaffected people living in the United States” are developing “radical ideologies and potentially violent skills.” Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.
- A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web – and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.
- A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.
- The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down “terrorists” who use the Internet to spread propaganda.
- The EU also recently proposed legislation that would prevent users from uploading any form of video without a license.
- We have also previously exposed how moves are afoot to clamp down on internet neutrality and even to designate a highly restricted new form of the internet known as Internet 2.
—————————————————————————————————————
Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers
high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with
infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don’t sell the names of our customers to marketing
firms or the government. Click here for more info.
—————————————————————————————————————
Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered. All these moves mimic stories we hear every week out of State Controlled Communist China, where the internet is strictly regulated and virtually exists as its own entity away from the rest of the web.
The phrases “Chinese government” and “Mao Zedong” have even been censored on China’s official Web sites because they are “Sensitive phrases”. Are we to allow our supposedly Democratic governments to implement the same type of restrictive policies here?
Under section 220 of the lobbying reform bill, Infowars.net could be required to seek a license in order to bring this information to you. IF we were granted a license we would then have to report our activities to the government four times per year in order to bring you this information. Does that sound more like free speech or more like totalitarianism?
***********
Take action:
As well as calling the Senate you should go to GrassrootsFreedom.com which has a petition that you can sign against Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.
Paul Joseph Watson contributed to this report.
Comments
January 19th, 2007 at 10:56 amWhat are the Dem? Just another branch of The War Party? What the hell is happening?
Comment by Kay — January 19, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Yea,and Hillary coming back from Iraq with her ’solutions’ was just more of the same.
Gore/Obama ‘08
January 19th, 2007 at 11:01 amMy sociology professor told me there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:01 amMy sociology professor told me there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Comment by ForTruth
In foreign policy, at least.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amMy sociology professor told me there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Comment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Maybe so;but the Rethugs have proven that they can’t be trusted to babysit Bush.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:09 ami’d have to disagree with your prof, fortruth…
January 19th, 2007 at 11:10 ami am a dem and grew up with repugs – there is a difference…
just sayin’…
Burn rate, huh.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amYou don’t want to see my burn rate right now.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttt!!!!
FT – anatomically?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amfor instance:
Ten major companies [...] “to call for a firm nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years.â€
now that the dems have the power the big guys want to play nice…
January 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amthis was needed and rejected many years ago…
McConnel [...] threatening to hold up a vote on ethics because he demanded an unconstitutional law be passed [...]
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 19, 2007 @ 9:50 am
excellent point… repeat often…
January 19th, 2007 at 11:15 amWayne, The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a nonpartisan basis.
Moreover, there is already a law on the books that gives the president the ability to suggest specific recissons to Congress. Under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President is allowed to suggest specific rescissions to Congress and—to allow Congress to consider those proposals before the spending takes effect—to freeze the funds for a period of forty-five days. As far as I know, the constitutionality of the Impoundment Act has never been challenged.
Rather than “canceling†any provision of law, the President merely proposes to Congress that it pass new legislation rescinding certain items of spending. Both houses of Congress vote on the approval bill, and the President then signs the bill, thus satisfying Article I, Section 7.
See: Yale Law Journal: Pocket Part, Oct. 2006
January 19th, 2007 at 11:16 amExley,
Your needed on the Gonzo thread, how would you defend that?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:22 amWell Democratic Men are not afraid of vhajina, and have an actual peenis.
*I had to misspell on purpose to get this post to stick*
January 19th, 2007 at 11:23 amMy sociology professor told me there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Comment by ForTruth
Your Sociology professor had his/her head up his/her ass.
Just sayin’
And probably didn’t look like Joe Wilson, like mine does. Mmmmm…
January 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amOf course, if your Soc prof was a woman, looking like Joe Wilson would be truly unfortunate.
Zooey,
That particular sociology professor got his docortate in Moscow, Idaho. Seriously.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:28 amWhen it comes to corporate whoring, what’s the difference?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:29 amZooey,
That particular sociology professor got his docortate in Moscow, Idaho. Seriously.
Comment by ForTruth
oooooooooh.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:33 amOh no he dit-int just say that, Zooey.
Are you going to take that?
That particular sociology professor got his docortate in Moscow, Idaho. Seriously.
Comment by ForTruth
Then he’s a truly gifted Soc prof, except that his head is up his ass. :)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:36 amAlright then Zooey,
Agreed.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:41 amTrueblue,
I know you would never encourage anything, heh. :)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:41 amZooey might be pissed at me right now. Tell her I’m sorry.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:42 amThanks for clearing that up, Exley. I wasn’t sure if the CRS was of the government or simply working for the government. Makes a difference. And, if the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 has never been challenged constitutionally, then there is no reason to assume that it is constitutional. Someone would have to have standing to challenge it, and how could we know when that happens? I predict that it some day will be declared unconstitutional, because bills presented to the president for signing must be entirely signed into law or entirely rejected.
Besides, if a president does not sign a bill within ten days (and Congress does not adjourn in that time), then it becomes law without his signature. If he tried to veto only portions of the bill, the Congress could simply ignore this “partial veto” (if Bush believes the Unitary Executive theory has any weight, then he should believe that the Congress can so the same thing with the law) and, even if the president did not sign the bill, it would become law anyway (whether Bush liked it or not.) So the idea of being able to partially veto a bill strikes me as being without constitutional authority. Honest people might disagree, but so would dishonest people, and not for any honorable reason. Thanks for the clarification on CRS.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:43 amI used to hold Democrats up as ideal (I, obviously, had a lot to learn)
and Republicans as low life scum. Now, I am afraid there has been a blending and both cannot be trusted to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
Now, more than ever, we need a THIRD PARTY. With each passing day, I cannot tell the difference between the two. And this really depresses me. We need a TRUTH PARTY that abides by the Constitution and will tell us all what really happened on 9/11.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:43 amWhat did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Read the rest of the story via Raw Story here.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amIt looks like my link didn’t go through. If this one doesn’t work, go to Raw Story (dot) com and look for the story below the headlines and above the other stories at the bottom. I’ll try again.
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohio.com%2Fmld%2Fbeaconjournal%2Fnews%2Fstate%2F16486387.htm
January 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amI know what your talking about Kay,
What’s the difference between the 2 parties?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amWayne, You are welcome for the CRS clarification. For the record, I am not saying that I believe the new line-item veto, if enacted, will be found constitutional. I just wanted to point out that this is a different form of line-item than the one declared unconstitutional in 1998. Looking at some of the statements by sponsors of the bill (including John Kerry), you see that that they say they have tried to address the constitutional concerns of the Supreme Court. In other words, they are not simply re-enacting a statute that they know to be unconstitutional.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amMy take on the line item veto was that Reid would allow a vote on it to sucker the Republicans into going on the record as supporting it.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pmThen make sure it gets voted down.
Just to add a positive story. I thought this was pretty interesting.
Solar power eliminates utility bills in U.S. home
January 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm#28 Exley. You think that the current adminsitration with their unique view of the constitution would not insert a signing statement with their interpretation of the bill?
What you are saying they are looking for iis simply input into the process, this administration has input into the process it always has annd they have pretty much dictated how bills in congress were written. What they are pushing for is far more than what you are suggesting.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pmThanks, Exley. Glad to hear you support the constitution on this one. It seems to be that no matter which version of the bill they vote on, they are trying to go against the plain meaning and clear intent of the Constitution.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pmdlet,
I hope the owner of the solar powered home doesn’t end up having an “accident” whith those dangerous solar panels.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pmRich Little is 75 years old. Why he still feels the need to suck up to anyone is surprising. So, I think he agrees with them and doesn’t look at it like he’s sucking up.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm[...] imagine the smug satisfaction I felt when I read in Wednesday’s San Francisco Chronicle (h/t, ThinkProgress) that the WHCA hired Rich Little to be this year’s comedian! [T]he Correspondents Association [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 11:42 pm[...] imagine the smug satisfaction I felt when I read in Wednesday’s San Francisco Chronicle (h/t, ThinkProgress) that the WHCA hired Rich Little to be this year’s comedian! [T]he Correspondents Association [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 8:51 pm