Ornstein: Will Scalia Blow the Whistle on This Constitutional Farce?

[understandinglife]

I'm not in the habit of posting stuff from the AEI, but the following I think many of you will find interesting:

A few weeks back, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described the legal philosophy of his adversaries--those who believe that interpretation of the Constitution should not rely on strict adherence to the words and intent of the document and the framers. “But you would have to be an idiot to believe that,” Scalia said. “The Constitution is not a living organism--it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.”

That is quite a quote -- and it is not a paraphrase. But it comes to mind as one watches the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader stonewall on the issue of making S. 1932 legal under the Constitution.

To those unfamiliar with the issue and controversy, the House and Senate passed a major budget bill by the narrowest of margins in both chambers, including a tie-breaking vote in the Senate case by Vice President Cheney, but it turned out that the bill passed the House and Senate in different forms.

This was not simply a transcription error, a misplaced comma or a misspelled word--something that would be plenty serious -- but a $2 billion discrepancy that arose over a last-minute compromise between the two chambers over the time allowed for the rental of medical equipment for Medicare patients. After the House had passed its version and the discrepancy became known, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) unilaterally changed the House bill to match the Senate’s and then sent it on to President Bush, which he signed to great fanfare.

But a seventh-grade civics student who has done his or her homework would immediately know that what the president signed is not a law. Laws, as Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution makes clear, must pass both chambers of Congress in identical form and then be signed by the president.

<clip>

More at the link:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24057/pub_detail.asp

Bush and Hastert BROKE the law - not just any law, but a violation of the Constitution.

Charge'um and book'um.


If You're pro-Bush, You're anti-America -- testing a new meme

[northzax]

1. it's an interesting problem

and I read this this morning, but I thought that AEI might violate the posting regs. Will something happen? doesn't someone have to file suit to get it to the Supreme Court? If I were a rep who'd voted for the act in the first place, only to have it changed, I'd be tempted to take it to court and get it settled, once and for all.

[understandinglife]

4. Ornstein is an AEI fellow.

It is an unambiguous case of both Bush and Hastert breaking Federal law. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits standard legal recourse for prosecuting law breakers - even the President. Richard Mathews, among others, have addressed this issue (during the past year):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5118827


Peace.

[fooj]

2. Truth is our most powerful weapon.

BTW- I like your new meme...

I see it as "You're either an American or a Bushican!"

Peace.

[FormerRepublican]

3. I guess Scalia would have a problem with the Unitary Executive Theory

...then. I wonder how he reconciles talking out of two sides of his face.

[understandinglife]

5. Probably the same way he justifies flipping someone off in church.

He's as big a hypocrite as all of them and he is definitely the person I most want to see impeached for what he did on Saturday, 9 December 2000.


If You're pro-Bush, You're anti-America

[Zenlitened]

6. "If You're pro-Bush, You're anti-America."

:applause: :applause: :applause: