Scatablog

The Aeration Zone: A liberal breath of fresh air

Contributors (otherwise known as "The Aerheads"):

Walldon in New Jersey ---- Marketingace in Pennsylvania ---- Simoneyezd in Ontario
ChiTom in Illinois -- KISSweb in Illinois -- HoundDog in Kansas City -- The Binger in Ohio

About us:

e-mail us at: Scatablog@Yahoo.com

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Democrats file suit against Bush Administration

John Avarosis at Americablog has this post up. I haven't yet checked around to confirm it, so you'll have to take his word for it. He's generally pretty reliable:

Developing story coming from the top House Democrats. They are filing a lawsuit against Bush and his administration to prevent implementation of the "Budget Deficit Act of 2005." That's the legislation which Bush signed even though the House and Senate passed different versions (basically because the Republican illegally changed the legislation).

This is pretty big news. The lead plaintiff is John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. He is joined by 10 other ranking members of the other House Committees: Dingell, Rangel, Miller, Oberstar, Frank, Peterson, Thompson, Stark, Brown and Slaughter.

They are seeking to enjoin the budget act because the constitutional process -- you know, from "How a Bill becomes a Law" -- wasn't followed. For all those strict constructionists, here's the actual language:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States:


The House and Senate passed different versions. What's more, they knew they passed different versions and instead of re-voting, they just fudged it. Bush, Hastert and Frist decided to overrule established constitutional law, just like they do in so many other areas.

I wonder if the Court will say the Dems don't have standing to sue. Weigh in on that, KISSweb.

1 Comments:

Blogger KISSWeb said...

Back in the day, we used to think the Supreme Court used the standing concept in particular -- maybe most of all among the jurisdictional screens -- to avoid cases it did not want to touch, or causes it did not want to help. With Scalia, multiply the agenda-driven analysis ten-fold. Certainly the court would prefer not to mess in the procedures of a co-equal sister branch of government, but it's right there in black-and-white and hard to avoid. But then there's Bush v. Gore.

10:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home