an act establishing the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission and the “Military Spouses Residency Relief Act”

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

an act establishing the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission and the “Military Spouses Residency Relief Act”

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

Everything dynamic and very positively!
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so far
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

But what if the legislation is veto-proof? What if the veto-proof legislation directs the president to undertake certain actions that threaten the Constitutional authority of the president? For example, what if a veto-proof law dictated the definition of Commander-in-Chief? Laws cannot do that. Laws do not trump the Constitution. If a president does NOT address this issue head-on in a signing statement, then isn't s/he tacitly accepting that Congress has the authority to re-imagine the Constitution via legislation? Isn't that a dangerous precedent?

So, what is the solution? I think the only current solution is the solution provided by the Constitution: if the president and the Congress disagree, the president is obligated to veto the law; if the president is unable to veto the law, then the president is obligated to refuse to enforce (or obey) the law (on Constitutional grounds) and must immediately challenge the law before the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules against her/him, the president must immediately begin to enforce (or obey) the law.

I am a flaming liberal, but I do not take kindly to side-stepping the Constitution by either a conservative OR a liberal president. There be dragons we don't want to awaken. I was taking Daphne Eviatar to task for either intentional or extremely sloppy fact (mis)management. That is acceptable neither from a journalist nor from a commentator.

As to my “sweetheart” comment: I disagree; you are wrong. Worse: you are being Politically Correct. An insult is most effective when it demeans the subject. That is the intent of an insult. Just because it reduces this one person (at whom it was directed) to subordinate status, it does not logically follow that it is directed at all other persons of the same gender (or race or sexual orientation or other affiliation). (One of my favorite political commentators is Rachel Maddow; I hardly think my barb aimed at Daphne pricked Rachel in any manner whatsoever.) Stop being so sensitive about being a women; it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Nonetheless, rather than focus on the grammatical (or purposeful) mis-characterization of Mr. Savage's comments, I feel it would behoove the country to talk about precendents and Stare Decisis. Using this as a guide, all of Bush's actions (including torture, pre-emptive war, signing statements, denial of H.C., etc.) are legal. Each time that President Obama follows the example of his predecessor, he confirms the legality of the precedent and makes the case for that action being legal stronger.

If you just breathed a sign of relief that Bush isn't going to be prosecuted and put through the legal test, I suggest you suck it back in as it means neither can Obama.

So whether there was one signing statement, five, seventeen, or a thousand – it matters little. What really matters is that the actions of Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and now Mr. Obama, have robbed a check and balance from the American people.

Last thing, derzehn; “sweetheart” only displays your inherent sexism, and loses the irony of your ending. I suggest you find alternatives that are biting and witty, but don't insult swaths of the poulace. You may find an audience which is more agreeable to your points – which are seemingly logically based.