House just voted YES on Amendment to Overturn Bush Exec Order Dealing with Presidental Records

[KoKo]

Next Bill is to strengthen FOIA and Whistle Blower Protection.

Vote on Amendent to overturn Bush's Executive order passed 333 to 93. Seems like Repugs crossed over and I hope this bill is good...no hidden zingers.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Let's hope the Senate has the guts to pass it

F*cking Lieberman

[KoKo]

2. True...and what they might add or subtract to weaken it... n/t

[blm]

9. Hard to say what will happen here. Some Democratic bignames have enabled the

protection of Reagan and Bush administrations and are invested in that ongoing protection at this point.

It will be a TRULY eye-opening vote, but I will submit that there is NO WAY any of the presidential contenders will dare to vote against it, even if they prefer it not pass. They just couldn't do it and still run.

[Dinger]

3. Wow!!

I have a feeling, especially today, that the snowball has started rolling down the hill.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Sorry to take the wind out of yours sails, but two words:

Signing Statements, if his veto is successfully overridden.

[KoKo]

11. At least they passed it and got Repugs on Board...It's Push Back

and isn't that what we were begging for. It's up to the Senate. And there we have a problem. But, it's a start at warning the Emperor and he's got a lot of plates spinning that are getting read to fall down on his head. :shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

29. Vetoes and singing statements are more obvious these days

Especially vetoes. King Bush-Boy has only vetoed ONE SINGLE bill. And it made the headlines.

His second, third and fourth will, too.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. I hate to ask this...

Does that amendment have any teeth? I was under the impression that the pres can issue any EO at his pleasure *wink* and Congress can't 'overturn' it.

[KoKo]

10. Yes...they can overturn him. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor

of overturning it. Which might mean if he vetoes then they can overturn his veto with a big enough margin since so many Repugs voted for it...but that doesn't mean the Repugs won't back down if he votoes it...so who knows. We have to have hope.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Congress can overturn an executive order, but in order for Congress

to trump an EO, it has to have a 2/3 supermajority vote ready since the president will likely veto that bill as it conflicts with his Order.

The other way to nullify an EO is for the courts to overturn it based on a violation of a constitutional principle.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. In theory, EOs are pretty limited

Strictly speaking, executive orders are the company CEO issuing directives to the staff.

There are two things limiting the scope of an executive order. First, they apply only to members of the staff, ie employees of the Executive Branch. Second, they may not violate the boundaries set by law.

Over the years, these limits have become nebulous. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has limited pseudo-legislative powers to create and enforce any regulations it deems necessary to fulfil its commission of safe food and safe and effective pharmaceuticals. As part of the federal bureaucracy, the FDA is part of the Executive Branch and thus, the President may issue orders directing the FDA's operations, policies and regulations.

Congress does have the power to override or nullify an executive order by changing the law. If a law gets passed (no doubt, over the President's veto) saying that presidential papers become public domain eight years after that president leaves office, that only those papers touching on immediate national security are exempt and that the current president must justify each and every exception to a bipartisan Congressional panel, there is squat that the president can do, as that is the law.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. Thanks! This is what I was looking for

They're not, technically, overturning the EO but passing legislation that would make the EO null and void. Same result. :thumbsup:

Now, if they can just insert an amendment that narrows the abuse of signing statements.

[wiggs]

6. Excellent and important. Read Deans Worse than Watergate on dangers of secrecy. nt

[porphyrian]

7. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Greeby]

8. It's not an amendment, it's a full bill

H.R.1255
Title: To amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records.
Sponsor: Rep Waxman, Henry A. (introduced 3/1/2007) Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 3/9/2007 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 20.
House Reports: 110-44

[Lasher]

35. Here's the House roll call vote

Roll Call 143
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended
2/3 majority required

333 yeas
93 nays (all Publicans)
7 not voting

Passed/agreed to in House 3/14/07

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll143.xml

Looks like a veto proof majority in the House, now on to the Senate!

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Oh, man, oh man!

Finally, now we get to find out what most Americans want to know: Was there really an alien cover-up at Roswell?

You think I'm kidding, don't you?

[EVDebs]

14. Keep 'rollin' those Exec Orders back ! Dems are finally on a roll ! nt

[AlCzervik]

15. that margin is veto proof i think.

[EVDebs]

17. And if not, get the R bastages on the record ! Use it against them in '08 !

Dems will take the principle over the pork ! R's were about the $ as related DU post shows us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x408673

[mikelgb]

19. IF the Senate passes it in a year or so

it will surely be fuck-head's 2nd veto

oh never mind. he will probably just make a signing statement (top secret of course) saying that his unitary executive will ignore the provisions and/or deem them advisory and he will take actions consistent with his plenary dictatorial powers invested in him by his interpretation of the quaint constitution (which is itself advisory, especially the bill of rights)

[razors edge]

21. If it gets

the same level of support in the senate, 78%, his veto will be overriden.

[Bandit]

20. If he could override the original LAW passed by Congress

Why couldn't he just do the same thing here? Bush* has shown an absolute disdain for American Law and I doubt he has any intention of changing.. The Constitution is pretty plain on what body can write Law. Bush* wrote Law with his Executive Order and that is just not Constitutional. but does anyone think he cares?

[ProudDad]

22. Ya' Think * will veto it?

And think the pukes will override a veto?


Rhetorical post... :evilfrown:

[Lasher]

34. Junior will count up votes in Congress ahead of time

If this doesn't pass the Senate by a 2/3 majority he will veto, thinking the votes are not there to override. If there are just barely enough votes to override he will veto and then strongarm weak GOP Senators to try to get them to change their votes.

Junior and Karl have used similar tactics to move their extremist legislative agenda. Medicare Part D comes quickly to mind.

But if he thinks an override is likely, I don't think he will veto. In that case he would probably say it was his idea in the first place.

[ProudDad]

36. Hmmm.

Not only that, he'd probably relish the idea of releasing his dad's crimes in order to make his look smaller in comparison...not likely but then he's not sane...

[cyberpj]

23. Headline: Will Senate Grow Balls? nt

[AnnInLa]

24. Can someone explain some background for me?

[KoKo]

27. Here from CBS News What the Dems in House Passed...

WASHINGTON, Mar. 14, 2007
(AP) The House Wednesday passed three bills to open government records to the public, brushing aside White House opposition, and in one case, a veto threat.

The measures, highlighting the media-led Sunshine Week, would force government to be more responsive to Freedom of Information Act requests, make contributions to presidential libraries public and overturn a 2001 presidential directive giving the president authority to keep his records from public view.

The White House issued a veto threat on the presidential records bill and voiced opposition to the FOIA legislation. It also said the president would veto a fourth bill the House is to debate later Wednesday on whistleblower protections. Democrats say the bills, several of which were also taken up in past Republican-led Congresses, were needed to shine light on what they say has been one of the most secretive administrations in decades.

The White House said it was against the FOIA bill because it was "premature and counterproductive" to legislate new requirements on federal agencies before they have a chance to implement changes the president previously outlined.

The votes were 390-34 on the presidential library bill, 333-93 on the presidential records bill and 308-117 on the FOIA legislation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile held a hearing on a parallel FOIA bill, introduced by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, to improve administration of the law and provide penalties for agencies that fail to comply in a timely fashion.

Media representatives said seven agencies have gone more than a decade without responding to some requests for information under the act. They endorsed the bill's noncompliance penalties, its provisions to allow people to track the progress of their requests and its provisions to recompense requesters for attorneys fees when they successfully sue for records that were denied.

Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press and a member of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a media coalition, said that AP's legal battles to obtain information about terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had cost "well into six figures," but the Pentagon proposed to reimburse only $11,000. Under current law, "we'll have to sue again to get a higher, fairer number," he said.

The House bill goes a step further than the Senate version in restoring a "presumption of disclosure" standard that obliges agencies to release requested information unless there is a finding that such a disclosure could do harm.

More at........

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/14/ap/politics/main2569261.shtml

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Wow, good news! nt

[lonestarnot]

26. Excellent dem dems!

[KoKo]

28. A little more about this Bill from Sunlight Foundation:

House Considers Transparency Measures

We've been following the progress of a couple of bills making their way through Congress. H.R. 1309 puts a little more teeth in our Freedom of Information Act--the main lever that the press and the public has for prying documents out of the executive branch (and see here for useful FOIA tips maintained by Investigative Reporters & Editors), while S. 223 would, for the first time, require campaign committees of Senate candidates to file their contribution and expenditure information electronically with the Federal Election Commission rather than sending in stacks of paper (both House and Presidential candidates file electronically).

There are other measures that are worth noting as well (with votes on all scheduled in the House for today and tomorrow). For me, the most interesting is H.R. 1254, which would force presidential library foundations to make their donor lists public. It is unseemly enough to have a foundation seeking millions of dollars from donors--corporate and individual, U.S. and foreign--to build what is essentially a monument to a former president; that they can do so anonymously, while that president is still in office, is a recipe for corruption (The name Marc Rich immediatley springs to mind for some reason...)

H.R. 1255 establishes procedures for releasing presidential records, and overturning the 2001 executive order from President George W. Bush that sharply restricted (and in many cases out-and-out eliminated) public access to these government documents. I'd actually like to see a government records act that goes a little further--former government officials generally have not only much better but also lengthy periods of exclusive access to their records. In 1992, Steve Weinberg wrote a book (along with my old shop, the Center for Public Integrity, called For Their Eyes Only: How Presidential Appointees Treat Public Documents As Personal Property that documented the ways in which presidential appointees "take classified documents with them after leaving public service, use the materials to write lucrative memoirs, and then seal off these documents for decades from historians, journalists, and other researchers." It's not just presidential papers to which the public needs better access.

H.R. 985 expands whistleblower protections--protecting agency employees who report waste, fraud, abuse, illegalities and other malfeasance to members of Congress or Inspectors General from administration retribution.

Finally, H.R. 1362 addresses shortcomings in the government's relationships with private contractors. Rep. Henry Waxman ☼, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, has a summary of the bill's provisions here. Just a quick observation on this--I'd like to have seen a provision that would try to determine why, for so many contracts for which there is open bidding, only one bidder shows up (which seems to me to be almost as bad as no-bid contracts, and as much of a problem). In 2005, the last year for which we have complete data, ten percent of contracts--worth nearly $40 billion--were awarded under that scenario, according to our friends at FedSpending.org.

All these bills would add to our ability to know what government is up to and keep it accountable--not a bad couple of day's work for the House if they pass them...

more at.......

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/2293

[JDPriestly]

31. Why only one bidder shows up for open bid contracts;

Because the one bidder's lobbyists helped write the requirements for the request for proposal for the bid. That is how government bids are obtained. The bidder responds to a request for proposal. You get points for meeting certain criteria stated in the request for proposal.

It is sort of a subtle form of earmarking -- making the award of money contingent on satisfying very narrow criteria tailored to a particular bidder's capability. If the would-be bidder's connections are really good, the request for proposal is so well tailored to that bidder's company that only that company will be able to qualify to get the money.

[Lasher]

33. "...would force presidential library foundations to make their donor lists public."

Ooooo, I like that. Who wants to see that secret list of people who donated that half billion dollars to Junior's propaganda foundation in Texas? Me, me!!

Wonder who might have caughed up all that money, thinking their names wouldn't be revealed?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

I'll bet the shredders will be working overtime at Saint Gipper's library.

[proud patriot]

30. YAY !

:woohoo:

[spiderpig]

32. Well, finally!

Dems! Are you finding your spine? I'm not convinced yet, but you're all we have. Do your job!!!