I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the big lefty blogs, my main issue being the sometime excesses of Dem rah-rah cheerleading. But there were two good diaries over at Kos today worth looking at. First, one by Ted Kennedy (yeah, Ted Kennedy), about legislation he will propose, short and sweet:
Also, a non-atheist related entry from Cenk Uygur, 'The White House Threatens to Ignore Congress."Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Prohibition on use of funds for escalation of United States forces in Iraq.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States Government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the level for such forces which existed as of January 1, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.
"This is the stuff constitutional crises are made of. This president has been unabashedly breaking and reinterpreting the law to suit his needs for years now. He does out in the open. He does it with the flimsiest of explanations. And he rubs everyone's face in it.He is in direct violation of FISA - he knows it, we all know it, and no one does a thing about it (except the previous Republican Congress that tried to make it legal retroactively and Senator Feingold's motion for censure). He now claims the right to violate the new postal reform bill - right after he signed it into effect. Laws don't apply to him. He has magical executive authority.
You know what this kind of "executive authority" used to be called before? The divine right of kings, dictatorial power, authoritarian rule. I would like anyone to explain how a president in our constitutional form of government can claim the right to ignore laws passed by the legislative branch."










1 comment:
Thanks for the link to the Uygur post. He just nails it. Fave line:
What do we do when we have a president who expressly tells the country that he is not constrained by the law?
A positive first step would be for the opposition party to grow a spine and let the president know that he will follow the law or he will be thrown out of office. Violating clear federal laws is more than enough to meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement of Article II, Section 4.
Post a Comment