Bush issues executive order saying that congressional earmarks can be ignored

[Newsjock]

Unless they've specifically been voted on!?

Just said it at his speech thing.

[mcctatas]

1. Isn't that kinda like a backdoor line item veto?

I'm all for cutting earmarks, but can he even do this???

[skooooo]

2. how can he get away with this???????

[notadmblnd]

5. he'll get away with it because just like the rest of the shit he's gotten away with,

congress will let him.

[fascisthunter]

6. Congress Let's Him (nt)

[mcctatas]

9. Becuase he bought Dorothy's ruby slippers on ebay?

[eShirl]

21. because nobody will stand up to him

[kenny blankenship]

3. Hey Congress! Aren't ya glad you didn't impeach him now???

Jackasses.

[merh]

4. Will this make congress finally take action?

Will impeachment be put back on the table?

[DemocratInSoCal]

7. LOL!!!

Impeachment? What's That?

They're going to Huff & Puff, and threaten to blow his house down.

But not until at least November, other priorities and stuff.

[merh]

16. Oh, that's right

the only talk about impeachment comes from republicans and that is if someone had sex with someone other than their wife and lied about it.

or paid high money for the experience. :freak:

[skooooo]

8. what are you smoking????

Congress take action? What's that?

[merh]

17. One can still dream

and hope and pray and wish :(

[kenny blankenship]

Well now they can't - because it will look like they were concerned only with preserving pork

Shrewd insurance.

[merh]

19. damn shame that they are more concerned about how things

look and not about the constitution and the citizens.

But maybe because their purse strings have been cut they will act. Money makes folks do things that they try to avoid. Pork is how congress critters secure their jobs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. I must be dense.

Can I have an example of an earmark which wasn't voted on?

I understand that individual projects are often attached to big spending bills, but how is this not to be considered a line-item-veto except delegated to his staff?

[underpants]

13. 1. individually voted on not added on 2. this is pure BS doesn't take effect until 2009

AFTER Bush is gone.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Here's a nifty one I received in an email today. A slightly oldie but a "goodie"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003508676_mail04.html

January 4, 2007

Bush says feds can open mail without warrant

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Bush says feds can open mail without warrant
By James Gordon Meek
New York Daily News

On December 20, 2007, President Bush signed routine postal legislation. In a "Signing Statement," the President claims Executive Power to search the mail of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant, in direct contradiction of the bill he had just signed.

WASHINGTON — President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.

Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.

A White House spokeswoman disputed claims that the move gives Bush any new powers, saying the Constitution allows such searches.

Still, the move, one year after The New York Times' disclosure of a secret program that allowed warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mail, caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

"Despite the president's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.

Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.

[4dsc]

12. WTF is going on here

I'm going to send this to my congressional representatives to see what they have to say..

[BadgerKid]

15. Ballots?! What mail-in ballots did you mean? :scared: n/t

[flor de jasmim]

18. I keep wondering whether some of the money gone "missing" in Iraq...

...has really been used to set up "parallel" structures to achieve their nefarious goals...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. I keep wondering

if there is a direct connection with the skyrocketing poppy crops in Afghanistan for the same purpose. Iran-Contra proved that drug running isn't anything new to our "sub-rosa" government.

[underpants]

14. Question-Why use earmarks? Because they aren't tracked like grants

grant accounting is its own world but earmarks don't follow that-it is a one time payment and there is no accountability for the funds.

[onenote]

22. Hate to say it, but chimpy is on solid ground legally and politically

The executive order only applies to non-statutory earmarks -- efforts by members of congress to direct specific spending without putting into law. Most often such 'soft' earmarks are contained in an "explanatory" statement that accompanies the law -- sort of Congress' version of a signing statement, if you will. While legislative history is a valid tool for interpreting ambiguous language in a statute, its only an interpretative tool, its not binding law. Put another way, if Ted Stevens puts an instruction into an explanatory statment that $XX of an agency's budget is to be used to build a bridge to nowhere, and the agency doesn't build the bridge to nowhere, do you think someone could successfully sue the agency to spend the money based on the explanatory statement?

Again, if chimpy tried to instruct an agency not to comply with a statutory earmark, that would be unconstitutional. But why we would defend soft earmarks is something I can't quite understand, unless suddenly we're in favor of bridges to nowhere being hidden in explanatory statemetns.