Say hello to a long lost friend

[Gonz]

Inflation is about to make a comeback.

WASHINGTON — America’s lowest-paid workers won a $2.10 raise Thursday, with Congress approving the first increase in the federal minimum wage in almost a decade.

President George W. Bush was expected to sign the bill quickly, and workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

GWsigned the Iraq supplement tonight.

I've always wished some real leader woul dstep up & create a new amendment that disallowed combining of topics on bills. It'll never happen.

Freep

 

[spike]

Getting rid of line-item veto and signing statements would be good too.

 

[2minkey]

I've always wished some real leader woul dstep up & create a new amendment that disallowed combining of topics on bills. It'll never happen.

Freep

thin spot where we agree.

it would be extraordinarily super duper if we's could cut out the shit from bills that once had purpose.

no fucking riders, pleese.

the war funding bill certainly had a bunch of local shit tied onto it. no more, please.

one bill. one purpose. clarity. that would be great.

but that ain't what happens.

we've become too wishy-washy. perhaps, um, too french. yucky.

 

[Gonz]

Getting rid of line-item veto and signing statements would be good too.

There is no line item veto. Courts killed it.

 

[spike]

True to an extent. Although most governors still have it and signing statements are effectively almost the same thing or worse..

There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements to modify the meaning of laws by President George W. Bush. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[1]

George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court already held the one line item veto bill as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.[9]

Wikinews has news related to:
Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversightPrevious administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges.[6] [10] In the words of a New York Times commentary:

And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.[11]

The signing statement with the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy

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

On March 9, 2006, U.S. President George Bush signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which contained requirements for Congressional oversight of Executive use of the Act's powers. In a statement immediately following the signing ceremony, however, it was revealed that Bush "did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers."

Such signing statements typically allow the President to inform Congress about how he interprets the bill he has just signed into law. However, Bush's declaration that he would not follow the oversight rules if doing so would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties" is seen as extraordinary by legal scholars, who feel it contradicts language in the bill directly, and may violate the system of check-and-balance on which the U.S. government is founded.

The controversy surrounding the statement follows several other high-profile cases where Bush has claimed constitutional authority to bypass a law, including a claim that wartime powers permitted wiretaps of international phone calls without warrants, and a signing statement bypassing the McCain Detainee Amendment.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bush_declares_immunity_from_Patriot_Act_oversight

Yeah sure Wikipedia, bite me...accurate.