How to fight against Bush's skirting of the law

[ck4829]

Bush has been recently accused of not upholding the very bills he signs into law though "Signing Statements."

Bush will continue to do this. For the sake of the Rule of Law, Democrats HAVE to fight back.

Bush can not pass new signing statements if no legislation lands on his desk.

Until Bush promises to uphold the law, I say no legislating, and nothing but investigations of the Administration.

[MNDemNY]

1. Or, we could impeach.

[BlackHawk706867]

2. That would be a novel way to deal with it, but not holding my breath! eom. ww

[pocoloco]

4. I don't understand why that word is still in our vocabulary?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. What about a Writ of Mandamus, using the courts to force him to do his job

as mandated by the Constitution?

If memory serves, a Writ of Mandamus forced Jefferson to install federal judges of whom he disapproved but who were approved by his predecessor, John Adams.

[The Wielding Truth]

11. Supreme Court the last stronghold to protect our Constitution.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571106_2/Marbury_v_Madison.html

In the end Marbury did not get his commission and never became a justice of the peace in Washington, D.C. President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison could not complain about the outcome of the case, because they won. They were not ordered to deliver the commission to Marbury. Marshall was able to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional, and he did it in a way that required no action on the part of the executive branch. Thus, Jefferson, who opposed judicial review, could not stop Marshall's opinion from having a legal effect. Most importantly, the opinion established the right, the power, and the obligation of the courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

Although the outcome of Marbury seems inevitable today, at the time it was a dramatic statement of nationalism. It underscored the importance of the federal government—especially the power of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall went on to lead the Supreme Court for more than 30 years and is principally responsible for developing its power. Since 1803 the Supreme Court has cited Marbury more than 250 times. It has been used to support the outcome in many major constitutional cases involving the power of the president ; the death penalty ; reproductive rights ; relations between state and federal government ; and civil rights .

[Q3JR4]

14. This is how I remember it happening...

John Adams was defeated by Thomas Jefferson in the U.S. election for President in 1800. One of the last acts of congress before the newly elected body took over was to pass the Judiciary Act of 1801. Among other things it modified the number of circuit courts, changed the number of Supreme Court justices, and created 10 new District Courts. Two days before the end of his term, Adams appointed circuit judges and justices of the peace (something else the Judiciary Act allowed him to do) to cover the new positions. A day later the Senate approved all of the appointments, but the commissions had to be hand delivered to the appointed. Some of them were not. After being sworn in, the new president ordered a halt to the delivery of the new commissions. One of the men involved was William Marbury. Jefferson's new Secretary of State was James Madison.

The new congress engaged in some trickery and reinstated the previous Judiciary Act as well as "canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year....seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation." (Wikipedia linked below).

Marbury filled a write of mandamus in the Supreme Court without working his way through district or state courts. Marshall's court had to decide if the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the case (so that the court could hear it). Marbury argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789 (the original) gave the Supreme Court the requisite original jurisdiction at dispute.

Marshall's court had to decide if Article III of the constitution gave congress a list for original jurisdiction and how (if at all) congress can add to that list. If not, and congress attempts to add to the list anyway, what wins....the constitution or the statute? More importantly who decides the winner?

In the written opinion, Marshall rules that Marbury has the right to his commission under the constitution and that Jefferson should have delivered it, as the law says he should. However, he also writes that congress does not have the authority under the constitution to add to Article III of the constitution by statute. Thus, the court finds the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.

Marshall could have just ordered Jefferson to deliver the commission, but what recourse did the court have if Jefferson refused? Absolutely none. So, instead the Chief Justice found a law passed by congress to be unconstitutional, a decision that really had no precedence in the constitution...the constitution says nothing about the legality of Judicial Review. Instead of engaging in a showdown with hostile president, Marshall finds a reason in Judicial Review to refuse Marbury's request even though he finds that Marbury has a case against the President.

Because of Stare decisis (a common law term meaning, so I've been told, "Let the Decision Stand), the Supreme Court and other courts have had the right to review laws passed by congress to make sure they pass constitutional muster....which is not in any way established by the constitution.

Read more at the Wikipedia site located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison.

[Ezlivin]

5. As I've noted in another thread it's a slow, steady erosion

But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

Like you said, we didn't make a stand when the Supreme Court made its unbelievable "one-time for one man" ruling.

We didn't make a stand when WMD weren't found.

We didn't make a stand when the widespread, illegal wiretapping was revealed.

We didn't make a stand when it was revealed that we are involved with torture, both directly and indirectly.

We didn't make a stand when the rendition program and CIA secret prisons were uncovered.

So, ipso facto, we will not go to the streets en masse because there is not "one great shocking occasion" but thousands of steps along the way.

Discussion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1152287&mesg_id=1152287

[kestrel91316]

6. I could get behind that!

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. "Skirting" of the law? That has a ring of Newspeak to it

He has been violating it and no polite euphemism can change that fact.

[greenissexy]

8. I agree!

You beat me to it. I was going to complain about the original poster's support of Bush. He is being way too positive about Bush to be a rational thinker.

[ck4829]

9. Anyone else here support Bush by wanting to see him face justice and accountability?

Apparently, I do.

[Fridays Child]

10. I have my own signing statement.

Link

[virgdem]

12. LOL

That was very ingenious of you. I'm printing it out for posterity and for possible future use.

[Fridays Child]

13. You can...

...get one in my store. ;) :hi:

http://www.cafepress.com/artfulgoddess/415940