PDA

View Full Version : BushCo to face lawsuit for "playing fast and loose with the Constitution"


jAZ
04-27-2006, 07:07 PM
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1899100

11 House Members to Sue Over Budget Bill

11 House Democrats to File Lawsuit Against the Bush Administration Over Budget Bill
By KEN THOMAS
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Eleven House Democrats said Thursday they would sue the Bush administration, alleging the $39 billion deficit-reducing legislation signed by the president is unconstitutional because the House and Senate failed to approve identical versions.

The lawsuit, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, was to be filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit. Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states by an Alabama attorney and a Florida-based student loan consulting firm.

"Once again the administration is playing fast and loose with the Constitution," Conyers said. "Anyone who has passed the sixth grade knows that before a bill can become law, both Houses of Congress must approve it."

A version of the bill that was narrowly approved by the House on Feb. 1 contained a clerical error. That error was fixed when the bill was transmitted to Bush, who signed it Feb. 8.

The White House and House and Senate GOP leaders have said the matter is settled because the mistake was technical and top House and Senate leaders certified the bill before transmitting it to the White House.

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called it "another attempt by the Democrats to stop us from trying to stop spending. They'll go to all ends of the earth to make sure that Americans have less money in their wallets."

Bush administration officials declined comment.

House Democrats have sought another vote, accusing Republican leaders of abusing the legislative process. The 11 Democrats pursuing the Michigan lawsuit contend they were denied their right to vote on legislation signed into law by the president.

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare the act is not law and provide a temporary restraining order preventing it from being implemented.

In addition to Conyers, the plaintiffs include Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, George Miller of California, Charles Rangel of New York, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, James Oberstar of Minnesota, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Pete Stark of California, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Louise Slaughter of New York.

The defendants include Bush, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson, Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Treasury Secretary John Snow.

Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

patteeu
04-27-2006, 07:54 PM
It would be interesting to see what this "clerical error" was.

Taco John
04-28-2006, 12:30 AM
You're right. I'm not the least bit interested. If he signed a bill that wasn't passed by the Congress, willful or not, it's simply not a law. This isn't a Constitutional crisis or an abuse of power. I can't believe all the imaginary slights (pseudo-constitutional or otherwise) that the Bush-haters can conjure up. You people are ridiculous.

*edit* Furthermore, if he failed to sign the correct bill and didn't send it back to Congress with a veto, the strong argument can be made that the bill has become law without his signature. I'm not sure how they'd handle this if a clerical error caused him to fail to return the right law (i.e. would the right law become law due to his ineffective veto or would he be able to rectify the mistake?), but that's not an issue here. */edit*



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=137408

patteeu
04-28-2006, 05:20 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=137408

What's your point?

Taco John
04-28-2006, 03:04 PM
Mostly just about how wrong you were...

patteeu
04-28-2006, 03:22 PM
Mostly just about how wrong you were...

Let me check my scorecard:

I'm not the least bit interested. Right

If he signed a bill that wasn't passed by the Congress, willful or not, it's simply not a law. Right

This isn't a Constitutional crisis or an abuse of power. Right, although depending on what the error is and the reactions of the President, Congress, and the Courts, it could always turn into a Constitutional crisis.

You people are ridiculous. Right

I'm not sure how they'd handle this if a clerical error caused him to fail to return the right law, but that's not an issue here. Right

It looks to me like I'm batting 1000. What was I wrong about?

CHIEF4EVER
04-28-2006, 03:25 PM
It looks to me like I'm batting 1000. What was I wrong about?
You didn't agree with him.

HC_Chief
04-28-2006, 03:28 PM
I too would like to see the "clerical error". If it is ineed just that, then this is a petty act and outrageous waste of our time & tax dollars.

The way congress has behaved over the past couple of decades, I am more apt to believe that this is nothing more than partisan bullshit and those bringing suit should get the #^%*ing nuthooks!

jAZ
04-28-2006, 05:36 PM
I too would like to see the "clerical error". If it is ineed just that, then this is a petty act and outrageous waste of our time & tax dollars.

The way congress has behaved over the past couple of decades, I am more apt to believe that this is nothing more than partisan bullshit and those bringing suit should get the #^%*ing nuthooks!
There is absolutely nothing petty about this. It's a legal process required because Bush and the GOP Congress have refused to take action to correct this "mistake". It's been several weeks since this "mistake" was first disclosed.

Bush and/or Congress needed to fix this. They have so far refused to.