Great exchange in Conyers' signing-statement hearing.

[The Witch]

Republican congressman (R) is questioning the witnesses, which includes a former congressman (W). This is just a paraphrase.

R: If a bill contains an unconstitutional provision that everyone knows is unconstitutional, and the president signs it, does the president have to enforce that plainly unconstitutional provision?

W: If the bill containing an unconstitutional provision is being debated, the president should make his views known to the Congress and say he will veto it if it comes as-is to his desk. That way the Congress can work out the provision and the president can either veto the bill as-is or sign the bill if the provision is taken out.

R: But suppose he doesn't. Suppose he signs it. Does he still have to enforce this provision?

W: He should have sent it back to Congress to work on it. That's how the process works.

R: (exasperated) Then things must have changed in how we do things around here since you were in Congress.

W: Yes sir, they surely have.

It was a great moment, because in that moment the former congressman (who was also a Republican) slapped down the sycophant and brought attention to how much the Republicans in Congress have become unthinking rubber stamps recently.

Incidentally, the witnesses went on to answer the question directly thus:

W: He would be violating his oath of office to sign it; he would be violating the law if he were not to enforce it.

The Republican congressman's line of questioning was entirely frustrated. It was beautiful to see real constitutional principles in action.

[helderheid]

1. a thing of beauty!

[blogslut]

2. It was a great moment

Who was that bonehead congressman?

[spanone]

3. K&R

[gasperc]

4. violating his oath

precious
and why isn't he, ok, his people reading these bills to make sure everything is in order and has been tested constitutionally, oh yeah,, they don't care

[omega minimo]

5. did anyone point out that this is slightly insane?:

"If a bill contains an unconstitutional provision that everyone knows is unconstitutional...."

:wtf: How does THAT happen?

[The Witch]

6. "If my grandmother had wheels, would she be a wheelbarrow?"

exactly!! :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

8. The military tribunals act passed last fall had provisions like that

Specter knew it and passed it out of judiciary to the floor for a vote anyway.

[omega minimo]

10. .... the buck stops.... where?

[Morgana LaFey]

17. Why nowhere, dear.

Why ever do you ask?

:sarcasm:


:hi:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

18. I don't know about the buck. The bucks stop in the back pockets of Halliburton, etc.

nm

[rman]

14. Kafka, 1984 and the Twilight Zone all roled into one

Utterly insane.
And it looks like this is just the beginning if it's up the neocon gang.
It's what those neonaziscons are about; that's how it happened.

[omega minimo]

15. "Unitary Executive" they've been working on for a while........

[rman]

19. Article 2 of the Constitution

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

If there's any mistake in the constitution, this is it.
I think it is what Chomsky means when he says as much as that the possibility for totalitarianism in the US is embedded in the Constitution.

I had come across it before, but didn't know about Unitary executive theory. Thanks for the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory


Personally i think the position of president should be ceremonial and as that of a spokes-person, a representative of the government. The president should not have any special powers over congress, or anything else for that matter. No vetos, no signing statements, etc. The Vesting Clause creates unnecessary hierarchy, and i think hierarchy facilitates abuse of power.

[Tatiana]

7. That was a truly special moment. Even sweeter coming from a Republic. n/t

[rman]

9. "violating the law by not enforcing an unconstitutional provision"

(when it's signed)

..and at the same time violating the constitution by enforcing that unconstitutional provision, right?

[mopinko]

12. something * can do with one hand tied behind his back. nt

[rman]

13. In other words, Bush can create unconstitutional laws

(with one hand tied behind his back) - which he is then supposed to uphold.
Sure puts the concept of "law" in a different perspective then how most people view it.

[wtmusic]

11. Constitutional principles in action...as well as logical ones

Amazing! Can their be hope?

[tk2kewl]

16. Ahem... The SCOTUS decides if it is unconstitution, if and when there is a challenge. n/t