Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC: And just like that, the Congressional oversight provisions (Original Post) BeckyDem Mar 2020 OP
If true, this should be a talking point for every Democratic Member of Congress. guillaumeb Mar 2020 #1
Do you recall the Bush adminstration and signing statements? BeckyDem Mar 2020 #5
Thank you for the reminder. guillaumeb Mar 2020 #10
Yes. How they would rule, I have no idea. This SCOTUS seems to embrace BeckyDem Mar 2020 #13
They do. And Trump would claim that help for Americans was being obstructed by the Democrats. eom guillaumeb Mar 2020 #14
Yea, that is a given. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #15
Nancy seemed confident tonight Bev54 Mar 2020 #51
Hope so. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #55
Me too, I never underestimate her though Bev54 Mar 2020 #56
Nancy Pelosi will use all the mechanisms she has and so will Trump. I don't doubt her, its just not BeckyDem Mar 2020 #57
Well, that didn't take long. sop Mar 2020 #2
Shocked to find out we've been fleeced by the Grifter-in-Chief SBoy Mar 2020 #3
He has no such authority malaise Mar 2020 #4
What are they going to do? ThoughtCriminal Mar 2020 #9
Trump is now richer than Putin ... we're fucked ... proper fucked uponit7771 Mar 2020 #6
We all knew they would be. crickets Mar 2020 #7
ugh BeckyDem Mar 2020 #12
I don't know about those 'signing statements' stillcool Mar 2020 #8
Complicated and how would the SCOTUS rule? I don't know. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #11
Problem is, who's going to stop him? He'll stonewall every attempt at oversight. sop Mar 2020 #16
That is the problem. He is a thief/con man. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #18
thank you...I think I confuse it.. stillcool Mar 2020 #17
omg that brings back memories. yikes BeckyDem Mar 2020 #20
yeah...and those torture memo's.. stillcool Mar 2020 #23
Bush and Cheney are war criminals. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #25
it's who we are, and what we do.. stillcool Mar 2020 #31
The terror state, the USA. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #32
It is essentially a line item veto isn't it? LiberalArkie Mar 2020 #33
Its complicated.Take that with a grain of salt, I am no authority on it. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #34
Raise your hand if you're surprised by this ****crickets**** nt Guy Whitey Corngood Mar 2020 #19
They are predictable that way! BeckyDem Mar 2020 #21
Junior got away with this kind of bullshit all the time. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Mar 2020 #27
Skated his way through, yep. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #28
And I should give Cheney his due credit. He probably wrote at least half of them. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Mar 2020 #29
He got punked by that Borat actor not long ago. Cheney is nuts imo. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #30
I suspected something like this would happen. Turin_C3PO Mar 2020 #22
Corrupt Executive, corrupt Senate, corrupt SCOTUS, partially corrupt Fed. Judiciary. Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2020 #24
Greatest Heist in History spanone Mar 2020 #26
Man, no kidding. calimary Mar 2020 #60
I blame Dems, they should not have agreed to the corporate bailout. HuffPost was screaming Pepsidog Mar 2020 #35
This bill was about the people. You know that McConnell poisons every clean bill. Americans ancianita Mar 2020 #39
They're the robbers. See what I mean? They just recieved money but here come the lay offs anyway. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #46
Elizabeth Warren is all about the robbers. Re the industry you post, ancianita Mar 2020 #48
Yep. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #49
Signing statements are unconstitutional paleotn Mar 2020 #36
Isn't this abuse of power in a national emergency, subject to court challenge and further ancianita Mar 2020 #37
There will be hand wringing and then theaocp Mar 2020 #53
However, FOIAs can be filed, the NSA can gather intel, Congress can file a People vs. Trump ancianita Mar 2020 #54
I saw a pic a few minutes ago of mcconnell with a shit-eating grin. fookers MerryBlooms Mar 2020 #38
Rachel asked Mme Speaker about Trump's signing statement & Pelosi assured us that there WILL... Hekate Mar 2020 #40
I hope so. Right now it looks like he has the upper hand. BeckyDem Mar 2020 #42
rec. I guess we'll see. MerryBlooms Mar 2020 #43
I saw that on Maddow tonight since my last post and it made me smile. crickets Mar 2020 #47
He ignores the house. dem4decades Mar 2020 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author MerryBlooms Mar 2020 #41
Dump is a vampire. He just stole half a trillion dollars right in front of us. rickyhall Mar 2020 #44
Need to identify anyone that is involved. LiberalFighter Mar 2020 #45
somebody please explain to me what the fuck was going on with Rep. Steven, of MI? Hulk Mar 2020 #50
This is one time I support AOC 1000% nt doc03 Mar 2020 #58
Who has standing sue to nullify this attempt at "line item veto" via signing statement? pat_k Mar 2020 #59

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
1. If true, this should be a talking point for every Democratic Member of Congress.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:41 PM
Mar 2020

Can he actually override this provision?

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
5. Do you recall the Bush adminstration and signing statements?
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:46 PM
Mar 2020

Hillary use to go after him for it. They're essentially an executive privilege move.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes. The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and was also used by the succeeding Obama administration.[3] In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
10. Thank you for the reminder.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:48 PM
Mar 2020

Perhaps this should be challenged in court. Or if allowed, it should be publicized and repeated every day.

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
13. Yes. How they would rule, I have no idea. This SCOTUS seems to embrace
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:52 PM
Mar 2020

executive privilege. The Republican side that is.

Bev54

(10,045 posts)
51. Nancy seemed confident tonight
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:28 PM
Mar 2020

on Rachel that the congress would have oversight and she smiled so that tells me she has got this. She said she was expecting it.

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
57. Nancy Pelosi will use all the mechanisms she has and so will Trump. I don't doubt her, its just not
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:05 PM
Mar 2020

simple to control executive power.

 

SBoy

(92 posts)
3. Shocked to find out we've been fleeced by the Grifter-in-Chief
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:43 PM
Mar 2020

He’s got another $500 Billon to hand out to His buddies. He learned from Putin how to rob the Treasury and build allegiance for those who play ball with him. Disgusting that there’s no oversight, and that he’s using the cloud of the pandemic to rob us all right in front of our very eyes.

stillcool

(32,626 posts)
8. I don't know about those 'signing statements'
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:47 PM
Mar 2020

I thought they reflected a Presidents take on the bill, but it had no legal juice.

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
11. Complicated and how would the SCOTUS rule? I don't know.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 07:50 PM
Mar 2020

Legal significance

No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. However, there is also no part of the Constitution that grants legal value to signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, to sign it, or to do nothing. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not.

Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.[citation needed] There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive's position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive's view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.

Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies' usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action.[11]
Supreme Court rulings

The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled to Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Samuel Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department – see "Presidential usage" below).
Presidential usage


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
20. omg that brings back memories. yikes
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 08:20 PM
Mar 2020

Ya know the entire mess and how Obama went about it was a case of irony on steroids.

On one hand you have the Republicans who have always expanded executive power and then Obama trumps them on it. lol Not to suggest he should but I think you get my point. In the end the Iran deal was his greatest achievement.

stillcool

(32,626 posts)
23. yeah...and those torture memo's..
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 08:27 PM
Mar 2020

shits been going on for a long time, I think Reagan had a do-si-do with legal findings during Iran/Contra.

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
25. Bush and Cheney are war criminals.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 08:33 PM
Mar 2020

I don't care who likes them now or normalizes them. Both men lied and destroyed a country and people based on bullshit.

stillcool

(32,626 posts)
31. it's who we are, and what we do..
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 08:53 PM
Mar 2020

it's just insane.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/

"Since World War Two the United States has attempted to overthrow more than fifty foreign governments, it has dropped bombs on the people of around thirty countries, has attempted to assassinate some sixty foreign leaders, helped to suppress dozens of populist or nationalist movements, has tortured many thousands, and seriously and illegally intervened in one way or another in virtually every country on the planet, in the process of which the U.S. has caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
William Blum, in a speech at the University of Vermont, 2007




"I spent thirty-three years in the Marines, most of my time being a hlgh class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1910-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
In China in 1927 l helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
I had a swell racket. l was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions. l might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents."
General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant, 1935

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
34. Its complicated.Take that with a grain of salt, I am no authority on it.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 09:32 PM
Mar 2020

Congress attempted to grant this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States

Signing statements: provide direction to agencies of how to interpret or enact a legislation
Line-item veto: president removes parts of a bill he does not like, and sign the rest

Turin_C3PO

(13,964 posts)
22. I suspected something like this would happen.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 08:24 PM
Mar 2020

Unfortunately, with a corrupt Supreme Court and a Senate that won’t convict him, our only shot to stop this madness is in November.

Pepsidog

(6,254 posts)
35. I blame Dems, they should not have agreed to the corporate bailout. HuffPost was screaming
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 09:36 PM
Mar 2020

about this heist all day yesterday. It should have been a people bailout, and that’s all. How many times must we Dems get shit on until we learn. So Trump will become an actual billionaire now because of Covid. His checks are already being written. We are suckers !!

ancianita

(36,023 posts)
39. This bill was about the people. You know that McConnell poisons every clean bill. Americans
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 09:47 PM
Mar 2020

can't collapse while those bullies force Dems to duke it out.

AMERICANS NEEDED THE MONEY.

There will be more bills coming, as Speaker Pelosi explained tonight.

And every time, senate vampires will insert their beaks in the till. They are the bought tools of parasitic Trump and corporations. Tell this to all the less informed people you know outside DU.

We know what we face.

You sound as if winning these fights is more important than getting the money out to Americans.

That fight can't be right now, though.

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
46. They're the robbers. See what I mean? They just recieved money but here come the lay offs anyway.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:03 PM
Mar 2020

CNBC Now@CNBCnow
JUST IN: United Airlines warns aid isn’t enough to avoid workforce cuts


ancianita

(36,023 posts)
48. Elizabeth Warren is all about the robbers. Re the industry you post,
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:11 PM
Mar 2020

remember that airlines are ALL down on customers, having to cancel flights by the hundreds.

All industries are in cancel mode.

AOC knows the robbers have their money and commerce can go to hell.

ancianita

(36,023 posts)
37. Isn't this abuse of power in a national emergency, subject to court challenge and further
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 09:41 PM
Mar 2020

investigation leading to impeachment? I think so.

But first things first.

There's GOT to be a "follow the money team" on this, in reality, even without the usual and customary formal Congressional oversight process.

Maybe the FBI can get an 'off the books' team on this.

There has to be monitoring. This is a national emergency. No racketeering.

theaocp

(4,236 posts)
53. There will be hand wringing and then
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 PM
Mar 2020

the money will go to the rich. 45 will ignore calls for any documentation and the IG will be neutered.

ancianita

(36,023 posts)
54. However, FOIAs can be filed, the NSA can gather intel, Congress can file a People vs. Trump
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:48 PM
Mar 2020

suit to nullify the signing statement, claiming harm to the country in state of declared national emergency -- all these actions being all the more reason to exert oversight over an already proven criminal president through formal impeachment.

Hekate

(90,643 posts)
40. Rachel asked Mme Speaker about Trump's signing statement & Pelosi assured us that there WILL...
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 09:48 PM
Mar 2020

...BE OVERSIGHT FROM THE HOUSE.

crickets

(25,962 posts)
47. I saw that on Maddow tonight since my last post and it made me smile.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:05 PM
Mar 2020

My bet is on Pelosi. She's tough as nails, she's on the side of the people, and she's angry. Never count her out.

Response to BeckyDem (Original post)

 

Hulk

(6,699 posts)
50. somebody please explain to me what the fuck was going on with Rep. Steven, of MI?
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:23 PM
Mar 2020

I want to take pride in our political movement...but watching and listening to this woman really left me wanting to say I didn't know who the hell she was, or what the hell she was trying to accomplish.

It was embarrassing. Granted, I probably don't know the whole story...but this was just plain embarrassing to watch. What the hell was going on with her? Was she possessed??

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
59. Who has standing sue to nullify this attempt at "line item veto" via signing statement?
Sat Mar 28, 2020, 02:09 AM
Mar 2020

Whoever it is better be drafting a motion this minute.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ...