Rightwing Alert! Encourage Bush's Constitutional Crisis!
By Bill W. Monday Jan 07, 2008 1:17pm
Click on the pic to read the Red State Action Alert! ( h/t to our nonnymouse)
Now I'm not about to get into the debate whether eliminating all earmarks altogether would be a good or bad thing, but I must question the timing of Red State's concern all of a sudden about pork or the Constitution though. I mean, why didn't they ever make this argument during the first 6 years of Bush's term? And if they're going to suddenly discover the Constitution, why not start with other pressing problems like habeas corpus, torture, signing statements, ... ? /sigh
The village Republicans have been torn lately over their love of pork and the idea that they might have to share so much of it now with the Democratic majority. So now their nutroots are clamoring to scream foul over earmarks even though the Democrats have cut earmarks back by almost half since the GOP majority had their way with the purse. I will say this much though. Apparently the wingers may be right about one point. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service took a look at earmarks and they found that "the president possesses the necessary legal and constitutional authority to issue such an executive order" although the CRS essentially advises the president not to do so.
Apparently if Bush decides to start ignoring earmarks just because they are contained in nonbinding report language, it would be another example of his administration's willingness to test the outer limits of executive power.
And in addition to starting an all-out war with Congress over constitutional spending authorities, it might just encourage lawmakers to put all those earmarks directly into the binding portions of the spending laws.
So if that's true, this rightwing "action alert" is probably much ado about nothing except to shake the base and pretend that they are fiscally conservative after all, but there is one thing I'd still reeeally like to know - Which one of you "leftist code monkeys" set up Red State's subscription-based email list and taught the idiot wingnuts how to use it? Fess up!
Login or Register to post comments.
Impeach the Bush administration!!
I get their alerts/etc, and I saw this the other day. Funny, but your comments are right on. They can see the Democratic Party takeover, and they are starting to sandbag against the party that had better get some things done for America before we take the final spin and flush away to the sewers.
These nutballs are so fascist and screwed up in their thinking, I am not sure what to do...ignore, laugh or get worried.
You know we are in for another four years of "Whitewater chasing" by the repugs as soon as the election is over. This country had better have a thick backside, and Congress had better be prepared to hear all sorts of accusations and false rumors brought before them.
The storm is coming.....plan on it!
As I understand it..earmarks are inserted into the bill and it is then voted on. Can someone explain the claim that "the hose and senate did not vote on these earmarks". Interesting to note that Bush took no such actions when it would have reflected on a GOP controlled congress..THAT INSERTED MORE EARMARKS..than Democrats. This president does absolutely nothing for the American people or America..it's only the GOP with him.
Earmarks are political currency. This must have something to do with the political commerce the democrats are involved in. There must be a triangulation here that punishes those political 'clients' who are receiving the benefits of the earmarks.
Now the Rethugs are complaining about fiscal responsibility? After the so-called Contract for America, The Repubs have treated the treasury like their own personal piggy bank. Bridges to nowhere, Homeland insecurity, and lest we forget, the war in Iraq. This is just to attempt to look like they are appalled. Fact is they are responsible. This is a charade.
It's just bs to try to gain the high ground and show they are the fiscally conservative party during an election year.
The biggest war monger ever in our country was just on tv talking about his trip to the middle east and how he is going to show them how to live peacefully. Oh, the irony. Then he went into his rant about the dangers of Iran and how what the boats did yesterday was "a provocative act"
Jesus, he was reading every word of his speech and still he sounded like a drunk trying to read a newspaper.
fuck redstate for pretending the aren't owned by Eagle Publishing and begging for money and for suddenly caring about earmarks and the constitution when they've been enabling the privatization of the military and the suspension of Habeas
This is Bush yet again fighting a constitutional battle that's already been fought, and lost. Appropriately, it was Nixon who tried to block Congress-mandated spending, and the Supreme Court struck down the action.
Sigh.
It's getting to the point where I have to wonder if they're all just corrupt, plain and simple. Both parties.
HulksHeroes @ 2:
Rule of thumb -- they are only funny when trying to be serious. When they try to be funny, good time to go for coffee.
The biggest earmark of all is the TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS Fuehrer Bush has squandered on Iraq.
There are two issues here, one is that no money can be spent without the authority of Congress. The other is whether the President can decide not to spend money that has been allocated.
I think that it is pretty clear that if Congress passes an appropriation with an earmark, the money can only be spent in compliance with the earmark. Money authorized for defense cannot be spent decorating the WhiteHouse, money allocated for a road interchange in one state cannot be spent in another.
But is the President obliged to spend the money at all? The issue here is practical as well as political. Congress allocates money for earmarks that turn out to be unusable all the time. The money turns out to be insufficient for the purpose, there are no bids on the contract, there are legal challenges, planning takes longer than expected and so on.
Always remember: IOKIYAR
OT but so cool. They are calling for more ballots in New Hampshire because of the very large turnout today. Voters are ready to have their voices heard. Good for everyone.
To HulksHeros in case you didn't notice we are already in the biggest shit storm with this group of clowns that I've seen in over 50 years. We have to hang so much shit around their necks that in fifty years no one will admit to being a republican ,just like now trying to find someone boasting of their past Nazi involvement.
HulksHeroes @ 2:
That's why 2008 is not just about the presidency.
It's about all of Congress.
Don't vote for a single republican, even if you think they're good. It only empowers the Party of Slime, the Party of Obstructionism.
It is time to take back our country and remove it from the filthy hands of the Party of Neo-Cons.
I find it hilarious that the guys over at Red State actually blame their lack of website management skill and knowledge of open source programming on the fact that all those logical, critical thinking, programmer types are all left wing fascists. God forbid these chimps have to learn a new skill set and, heaven forbid! try to teach themselves something through the numerous online resources that I'm sure are out there for this Scoop suite. But no, it's always someone else's fault, not their own stupidity. I hope that was a shitty attempt at humility, because it came off really lame. I really hope that web designer raped them with the fee, and judging by the plea for money, most certainly did.
The biggest earmark of all is the TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS Fuehrer Bush has squandered on Iraq.
If the Iraq War is the biggest expenditure, why is our national debt TEN trillion dollars, not one or two trillion?
We're getting robbed, and almost all of this debt is due exclusively to the current crop of Republicans.
"We don't possess the knowledge or skills to run a website and it's the liberals' fault!"
Absolutely sublime.
PHB @ 12:
In the sense that a President refused to spend money like he was exercising a "line-item veto" it would be unconstitutional. If it was held up by a lawsuit that would be determined by the outcome of the suit. If it were authorized but there was no bid by a contractor then that money would be returned as unspent.
Hey prunes, why is our national debt 10 Trillion, you ask? Have you ever heard of social security and medicare? I think those are democrat programs. I have never seen more blind rage in life than on this site. You people need to take your head out of the sand. Obama's change is to to increase government spending by 100%, raise taxes on everyone that already pays them, and lead to a general economic collapse while simultaneously emboldening our enemies through incentives (see Iran). The repubs have certainly been a disaster with earmarks, poor planning for the war, and expanding government programs. I see nothing from and Democrat that is going to make this country any better.
Reich-wingers are so use to blaming libruls for everything that now reich-wingers are blaming their own stupidity on the left. Priceless.
common sense @ 21:
There wasn't a debt when herr dubyah took over.
Feel free to try another factless rant.
This is 'line item veto' by executive order.
The 'line item veto' has been rejected by the legislative branch repeatedly.
To date the Administration has used the 'signing statement' to ignore the legislative branch.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hu...
This would not make Bush a 'dictator'. It would make him a 'unitary executive', if that makes you feel better.
common sense @ 21:
oh god a dam fool!
Dr. Matt @ 23:
That's not quite true. There was still a national debt, most of which was left over from the Reagan-Bush I years. Under Clinton we had managed to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt. There was a budget surplus, but that is like having money left over in your monthly budget after your mortgage and credit card payments were made.
There's got to be some connection here to Intelligent Design and home schooling, but if you were a conservative you would never be able to find it.
I would love to see who put these earmarks into the bill and a breakdown by party. Something tells me that their faux concern would quickly fade. Let there be no doubt which party uses earmarks the most.
As for Bush, he really can't say much of anything. Each time he has claimed to oppose a bill because of earmarks or pork, he signed the bill with all the pork and then some. It has merely been a way of not having to publically state what he disagrees with about the bill.
This is just more whining from a group who have repeatedly made total fools of themselves.
More worrisome is that RedState writers (and presumably their readers) actually believe the President of the United States has the power to declare the Constitution legally without substance. Too bizarre.
Wingnut stooges. I think the entire authoritarian swarm were the basis of the Twilight Zone episode: To Serve Mankind. Progressives hid and resisted, the rest obediently lined up.
These guys are too funny. Didn’t they come up with the $2,000,000,000,000,000 bridge to nowhere?
moondancer @ 30:
It's both a feature and a bug of libruls/progressives. We don't agree with anyone, even each other.
Captain Kangaroo @ 31:
And the $1,500,000,00 war to nowhere?
I'm not worried about this actually happening, but IF IT DID, Congress should simply pass a law explicitly stating that Executive Signing Statements have no legal authority (which they do not) and that any official substituting the interpretation of a signing statement for the actual wording of the law as passed and signed (or, if necessary, as interpreted by the Supreme Court) would be committing a federal crime.
Bush suddenly concerned about the constitution, congressional process and 'earmarks' huh.... Well, I'd like to say I'm impressed...
But that would be a lie... Why doesn't the Chimp just use one of his (in)famous signing statements to render it all null and void... as is his usual modus operandi...
Oh, that's right... He's been abusing that process like mad, (more great legacy work there Georgie), right along with congress abusing this earmarks bullshit.... Yea, Nonny or John or whoever wrote the leadin, signing statements, habeus corpus abuse, torture, sneak and peak on a whim... Gitmo, Abu Gharib, wars for oil lanuched on lies and manipulations and on and on.. Boy the hit parade just keeps on a-rollin... And now suddenly he and the repubs are all worried about 'bridges to no-fucking-where'!! B.F.D.....
The whole lot of you sniveling money grubbing, power mongering D.C. freaks can all fuck off as far as I'm concerned... I'll say this much about it which might or might not favor this latest probable attempt to stretch executive power... Yea, maybe it would be a damned good idea to start seeing these money requests as part of the official budget process..rather than tacked on at the end during the middle of the night.. Either the more bullshit ones might start to go away or else 'we the people' just might start seeing something approaching the freakin truth about the federal budgets and the real deal on the money needed to make shit happen... Maybe... But probably not.. With the spin machine all nice and revved up these days, we'll all just end up being fed another line of B.S. by some new means...... JD
JD
Have we seen any earmarks for a 200+ million dollar bridge to nowhere yet? Don't talk to me about earmarks, Repugs.
common sense @ 21:
Idiot. Go look up how much those programs actually cost.
Now come back and apologize because that's still TRILLIONS less that what Republicans have spent on handouts to their corporate buddies.
"Conservatives" my ass.
<blockquote?Obama's change is to to increase government spending by 100%, raise taxes on everyone that already pays them, and lead to a general economic collapse while simultaneously emboldening our enemies through incentives (see Iran).
You mean Obama intends to take the Republican budget that puts us $1.5 billion deeper in the hole every day and double it? My ass he does.
If you're talking NHC, we could have paid for the whole program many times over with what the Republicans are taking in pork. I'm not making this up, go look up the numbers yourself.
.
Isn't violating Constitutional Rights and Provisions a FELONEY?
You know the president will reward Congress for helping and assisting him VIOLATE the Constitution... A G A I N!
REMEMBER:
Just HOW is Congress supporting and defending OUR constitution of the U.S.A. when they consistently allow it’s usurpation and wanton and willful violation. Forget the fact that Congress doesn’t care they’ve been supplanted by the Administration, for they deserve what they tolerate, but to NOT support and defend THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS… IS A BETRAYAL OF THE HIGHEST.
T R E A S O N!
Such hesitation can only be justified when one understands that in that Oath Congress swore to in it’s undertaking, they swore to do it freely, FAITHFULLY, WITHOUT mental reservations OR a purpose of evasion.
Just what is Congress supporting and defending IF NOT OUR RIGHTS?
Each evasion and obfuscation, each attempt to justify issues that act against deeply sacred and American values such as Habeas Corpus, the Right to redress and Due process, WARRANTS, council, etc, is an act AGAINST AMERICA AND EACH AMERICAN.
T R E A S O N!
The terrorists didn’t suspend Habeas Corpus, nor did the president or V.P….
… CONGRESS DID!
The terrorists didn’t refuse council, redress and due process…
… CONGRESS DID!
The terrorists haven’t been briefed about WARRANTLESS WIRE TAPS OF AMEIRCANS or TORTURE, taking oaths of silence…
… CONGRESS HAS!
T R E A S O N!
Either Congress "FIX" what they let loose or they be held as a COCONSPIRITOR!
.
What the hell are these people talking about? A Conference Report is the name for the compromise bill that emerges from a Conference Committee, which in turns occurs when the House and Senate pass different versions of the "same" bill. In other words, If they don't pass exactly the same bill, the Conference Committee is tasked with producing a bill (a report) that both houses may agree on. It does not go to the President unless both houses pass the Conference Report. They vote on whatever comes out of the Conference Committee.
Now some of the confusion may lie in a tactic that was, if not introduced by the past Republican Congress, at least perfected by it. What DeLay and Hastert and friends became very adept at was inserting language into Conference Reports that was not considered by either House. Since Conference Committee Reports, by rule, cannot be amended on the floor, there is an argument for saying that such provisions are never debated in committee, but they are still voted on by each House.
Are the Dems now adopting this practice. I hope not. But it is outrageous for any Republican to now object to the practice. Remember when the Republicans couldn't get there last minute insertions correct and the House and the Senate ended up voting on two different versions of the Appropriations Bill, with something like a two billion dollar difference between them? Remember when Alen Spector was enraged to find out that his staff had inserted language into a bill allowing the President to circumvent Senate confirmation of Replacement US Attorneys? And now the Right wingers think it's wrong?
anon @ 4:
Many 'earmarks' inject money into local public projects that add focus and direction to programs that benefit the residents of relatively small populations. For example, in Wallace, Idaho they hope to establish a fire museum that will feature a surround-type-movie showing the horrors of the 1910 forest fire that destroyed millions of acres of northwest forests. Coupled with the display will feature various environmental concerns and solutions.
'Earmarks' of this type bring tourists into an area and boosts local economies. I would hate to have a president to be able to squash opposing party legislators' gifts of pork of this type. (Actually, we're probably safe - Wide-Stance lives on this block, and the repugs want him to keep treading water.)
Not that I agree with stuffing any bill full of money for your cronies, but Congress is expressly granted the power to control the money of the government. It doesn't matter what GWB wants or not, that is Congress's express privilege. Now GWB can tell his cronies not to spend the money ( yeah cuz that'll happen ) even if he passed the spending bill, as is his right because earmarks don't have the power of legislation.
How precisely the fuck are these red state tards trying to say that Congress is in violation of the Constitution. I'm a little confused since this seems to be the one example in the last 8 years where everybody is actually OBEYING the Constitution yet these morons are calling for a confrontation? Personally I think we need a confrontation I just don't understand their lame ass justification for it.
And where the fuck were they when Dubya was intimidating Congress? Where the fuck were they when people were being tortured ? Where the hell where they when the smirking asshole Gonzales eliminated Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush was busy violating multiple amendments by spying on us? Where were they when Bush passed executive orders stating that he can seize assets of anyone he wants on his authority alone? Where were they when Bush illegally ordered drag net spying of the internet, and phone records of thousands of Americans?
Bunch of damned traitorous morons these people are.
common sense @ 21:
Look at your pay stub. The 'Medicare' deduction is Medicare. 'FICA' is Social Security. Two self funding Government plans.
They are separate from the US general funds that are funded by the income tax. The 'Federal' deduction from you're pay check.
Our government has been 'borrowing' from the self funding Government plans leaving IOU's not dividends from our investment in these plans. IOUs from a government that is now close to $10,000,000,000,000 in debt.
Also, FICA is Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
not old Fart entItlements Crushing America.
More Constitutional hardball
First it was the not-really-pocket-veto, then the shifty not-really-recess-appointment of Strickler over at the Mine Safety Board, now this not-really-impoundment of earmark funds. In all three of these cases from the last two weeks, the underlying issue seems to be trivial, and is probably not the real reason they are trying to rewrite the rules.
My take on this is that the real reason they are playing Constitutional hardball over trivial issues is because they believe that political knife-fights in themselves, no matter what they're about, are good for their side. They're probably right. At any rate, they're probably starting out with trivial issues, ones that won't get them decisively engaged, just to see how the resulting conflicts play.
If things go well with the trivial stuff, expect a constant escalation until Election Day, because the election is what this is all about. The administration needs a Republican to win so that they won't go to jail after there's a new president deciding whether to invoke executive privilege or national security to conceal the evidence of their criminal wrong-doing. They can't help their man win the usual way, by campaigning for him, because the president is toxic, and the VP is even more toxic. But they can stage these knife fights. And they have to do whatever they can.
nonsense!
Max-1 @ 38:
yep!
I can't take credit for the article, hats off to Bill W. But I do subscribe to a few rightwing e-newletters, just on the principle that it's a good thing to know where your enemy is when he's busy throwing rocks (or worse) at you.
On the other hand, I could put a Devil's Advocate spin on this and say it's a good thing for the right to suddenly be concerned about the Constitution. At least now they actually know it exists...
HulksHeroes @ 2:
WE have all be wondering; "What are the NeoCons thinking? They are putting all this power in the Presidency only to hand it to a Democrat to make government work again?" Nobody could believe they were this dumb -- we've all been wondering if we would have an election, because any FAIR election would see a Democrat win in a land slide. Apparently, it might actually be that the Republicans are THIS dumb.
I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF BUSH COULD EITHER PRONOUNCE OR SPELL CONSTITUTION. HE HAS BOTCHED IT UP AND PRETTTY NEAR DESTROYED THE MEANING OF IT FOR THIS COUNTRY! SOME ONE HAS TO COME IN AND FIX THIS MESS!! LOTS OF LUCK!! WHO CAN WE COUNT ON? ALL OF THE WASH> POLITICIANS HAVE STOOD BY AND LET HIM HAVE HIS WAY! WE THE PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME TOO. WE VOTED FOR HIM TWICE!! GO FIGURE!!
The Democrats have cut back on Red State Pork, but not Blue State Pork. So your half right, which is still un-truthful.
common sense @ 21:
The vast majority of social security taxes come from the middle class you blithering idiot. And the reason we are in this economic meltdown, is because the aristocracy (republicans) have stolen the taxpayers blind! Expanding government programs? You mean for the average American who pays most of the taxes.
All the rich do is steal from the rest of us (privatization = government programs for a few uber rich repuke cronies), then pay guys like Rush 36 million a year to tell imbeciles like you that it's the middle classes fault.
[deleted--keep it civil]
Login or Register to post comments.