Jus Cogens!

Webb is having some legislative success- picking issues that have majority support and then pushing his political advantage. Smart guy.

Wow a DEM with balls. Hope he isn’t planning any trips in small aircraft.

I’d sure like to see Webb on Obama’s ticket. Maybe at the top of the ticket, the more I see and hear of Obama lately.

Damn, Webb gets shit done. Guess it doesn’t hurt that he doesn’t back down and cower in fear every time a Republican says boo. Don’t always agree with him, (FISA) but it’s hard to not like the guy.

To oppose Webb- Clusterfuck has to come out in favor of war profiteering and then WIN that battle…..not a hill he chooses to die on apparently.

Liking Webb is equivalent to being happy with crumbs.

Of course Clusterfuck has only about six months to dither and the whole thing is academic anyway…he can probably handle his problem that way.

It’s still surprising, Bush hasn’t shown any reluctance to take batshit stupid positions, and stand firm on them. SCHIP comes to mind. I think Bush is just afraid of Webb.

And while we’re pushing back, the Democrats should be screaming that Bush lost his war to Iran (via Tbogg):

“Of all the unintended consequences of the US invasion of Iraq, surely the most paradoxical is the way it has boosted Iran’s position in the region. In toppling Saddam, the United States removed from power Iran’s mortal enemy, the leader of a regime with which it had fought a devastating eight-year war that had cost it a half-million lives. The electoral system the Bush administration devised helped bring to power a Shiite majority with long-standing cultural, religious, and economic ties to Iran>.”

(snip)

“If the United States is ever to withdraw from Iraq, reaching some accommodation with Iran would seem essential. Trying to make sense of this, I recalled something Toby Dodge had told me: “When the Americans go home, the Iranians will inherit the earth.” Iranian hegemony over Iraq: that is the Bush administration’s worst nightmare. The Iraq invasion was designed to project American power in the region at Iran’s expense; instead, it has done the exact opposite.”

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21617

I don’t know if Webb’s being seriously considered by Obama for VP, but it seems that SecDef or SecState would be a more logical place for Webb to end up.

yes. but when one is starving, bread crumbs can look very good. :(

Maybe- but I doubt it..there ain’t gonna be a real shoot out at the OK Corral- if there were Bush WOULD be quaking in his boots- just a political dustup..

I think that the physical confrontation analogy gets WAY too much attention.

seems as if Webb’s the only Senator who dares to push back against Bush. Good for him.

Feingold pushes back a lot- he just doesn’t win.

How what is done? Webb is going to sit down and talk with BS artists that will promise anything? It is treason to continue to allow this white house to act, and anything else is meddling with attitudes and standards and relationships and crap. I don’t believe in making gods out of people that are willing to play by a rule book that is written by organized crime. If you aren’t a part of a solution, try not to be part of the problem.

When did we get so complacent about huge gaps in law and tiny little victories of procedure? This is straw grasping, and not good news. Why isn’t Webb talking about impeachment for treason?
Priorities seem to be changing. People are giving up it seems.

What exactly does it mean that they will do anything now. I mean after all the other signing statements. They bitch and moan about it and do nothing. So exactly what will come of Webb saying these things now, Is it any different?

If people here saw it that way, fine. But they tend to look at the crumbs as though they were the appetizer for a full cours dinner.

One of the few in the senate that understands the military institutionally.

I hope he remains a strong voice there.

Webb does strike me as a guy to respect in a fight. Reminds me of a good friend who recently passed away who went to bars LOOKING for fights.

agregious, and now a template is created and it is a DOOZY and needs to be done WHILE THE PRESIDENT IS IN OFFICE

regarding ALL signing statements, congress NEEDS to have “siging statements of their own”

which would go as so;

“congress does not in any way shape or form accept the president’s signing statement as any kind of change in thier law and if the president breaks that law he is doing it as a criminal”

or possibly something more eloquent but congress needs to IMMEDIATELY come up with their own “signing statements” which will serve the purpose of countering ANY signing statements the president has made to date

man, I LOVE that idea

webb for vp

Obama/Webb, works for me

Scots-Irish. And should someone accuse me of stereotyping, I think I’ve heard Webb self-describe that way.

Well the BILL is the signing statement of congress….

I think these signing statements get way too much attention. They aren’t really worth the paper he writes em on.

feingold for vp

My buddy was Irish/Irish, but he looked exactly the same as Webb.

Well the BILL is the signing statement of congress….

the bill is not the last word, the signing statement is, congress needs to have the last word again

Excellent! Bush gets the finger.

He wrote an entire book on the Scots-Irish

Congress DOES have the last word on legislation- the signing statement doesn’t really do shit-

I think these signing statements get way too much attention. They aren’t really worth the paper he writes em on.

yes they are worth the paper he writes them on, without a documented pushback it means congress allows the statement, there has to be a documented pushback against the signing statement otherwise future action against a president who acted as he said he would in that signing staement carries less weight

we’re gonna disagree, if the president makes a claim and it goes unchallenged it is a very strong precedent, it needs to be challenged otherwise it will carry weight

egregious, will you be at Netroots? Did you see that Pelosi will be the Saturday morning speaker and that she’ll take questions?

Well, there you go.

And there I go. Must attend to errands.

Yes they are. The way it works (with the modern complicit Congress): Congress passes bill, Bush signs it but guts it with a signing statement so it is in no way anything like what was actually passed. Congress tsk-tsks the signing statement. Bush goes his merry way anyway, doing (or not) exactly as his signing statement indicated.

IF (BIG if) Congress asks about anything, Bush says “executive privilege” or “state secret” or simply ignores the request. Ta-da! Bush wins, Congress loses, the People lose. Signing statement(s) win.

Congress has always been at the mercy of the executive in terms of IMPLEMENTING legislation- and a prez can find lots of ways to sabotage legislation that he/she doesn’t like..signing statements don’t add appreciably to that power that I can see.

The only POSSIBLE advantage is that if a court later reviews a law they have a record of how the president interpreted it- which they are free to ignore anyway.

McCaskill Webb commission won’t have subpoena power, difficult to see what they could accomplish.

Precisely my own point. Congress the Prostrate (or is that Congress the Prostate?) merely shakes its head about the latest signing statement (if they hear about it IF a “journalist” decides to tell them about it) and goes on to the next bill (to be signing statemented into oblivion).

Bush does whatever he wants as per the signing statement, subpoenas (if ever issued) from Congress are ignored, questions are NOT answered, Bush STILL does whatever he wants as per the signing statement.

Congress has set the precedents by their inaction on EVERYTHING. They fall in line for ANYTHING Bush goes for and very likely would have gone for the social security Friedmanization/privatization if the public tidal wave hadn’t been so overwhelming. Congress doesn’t do anything these days but enshrine Unitary Executive claims.

The only POSSIBLE advantage is that if a court later reviews a law they have a record of how the president interpreted it- which they are free to ignore anyway.

there’s more advantage then that;

If a person puts up a fence and I make the public statement that the fence is on my property, the person who puts it up has to make a counter claim otherwise my claim could easily hold up in court even if he had documentation otherwise

there really has to be a documented pushback against the signing statement, otherwise it is gonna be pretty strong

He wrote a very good book on that subject,
learned a lot about him, and a lot about that branch of my family.

I couldn’t agree with you more on your basic premise. Yes, this is small potato’s in comparison to what should be done, but at this point even a small victory is nice to see.
My opinion for some time now is criminal charges. Impeachment isn’t enough any longer. Being President doesn’t exclude you from being charged with crimes if the evidence is there, and it seems to me there’s plenty of evidence.

oops I repeat yourself

I’d thought about going to netroots but it would be too much travel over the summer. Alas. It was fun last year.

Bummer.

Webb is a man for the times and I’m bloody glad he’s there. More folks with his presence, guts and integrity, please. More with his ideology, not so much.

A bit on signing statements from wiki:

Legal significance
No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.

Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself. There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive’s position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive’s view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.

Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies’ usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action. [6]

[edit] Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law “if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue” and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case’s dissent (which included Justice Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department —

make that “picking war-related issues”.

OT but something I have been following.

In the 90 months since Bush took office in January 2001, the Bush economy has created 5.17 million jobs or 57,450 a month. (These figures are based on the June 2008 job number which is preliminary and are of seasonally adjusted non-farm jobs).

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm (You have to set the form yourself.)

Stealing from my scandals entry 298 here, by contrast in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration (from January 1993 to December 2000), 22,760,000 nonfarm jobs were created or ~237,000/month (more than 4 times the Bush rate).

During the Bush years, manufacturing jobs traditionally associated with jobs with good wages and benefits declined by 3,577,000 from 17,114,000 in January 2001 to 13,537,000 (est.) in June 2008. The Clinton Administration actually saw a modest increase of 385,000.

So just to recap, in 8 years Bill Clinton created nearly 23 million jobs. In 7 1/2 years Bush has managed to create just over 5 million. Crude oil is trading at $144/bbl this morning. Everyone knows about gas prices. Everyone knows about the housing market going into the toilet. But the biggest stealth economic issue that almost no one has paid attention to is the horrendously crappy job Bush has done in creating jobs during his Administration.

Just once I wish the dumbass-in-chief would stop referring to himself as the Commander-in-chief as if he were CIC of the whole country (Bush Vader) instead of just of the military. As for the signing statements, Mr. BushVader is taking liberties he doesn’t have with our civil liberties.

Dumbass!

And that invalidates the trickle down arguments of the supply siders.

Bush has left the theoretical framework of modern american conservatism in a shambles- the American Enterprise Institute is probably working day and night to paper over his administration’s record as we speak.

Hey 12stringNC, welcome to firedoglake :)

Doesn’t Congress actually have to declare war first for the prez to become commander-in-chief.

Hi there 12 stringer- what brand do you play?

Small victories are nice, but what about a victory that actually means something? None of the victories for the dems over the past eight years have changed the direction of America. Our elected officials have still enabled BushCo to wreck our economy, our international standing, our military, our higher education system, etc. They’ve directly violated dozens of precedents and statutes and laws, both national and international. Yet no SERIOUS action has been taken. NONE. Nothing even remotely resembling justice. This isn’t a victory. It’s just another move on the chess board.

Hello, KrisAinCA.

here’s the gorilla;

Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements.

and when they do, if congress issues their own “counter signing statement” their argument will carry far more weight

that is the very point

Doesn’t Congress actually have to declare war first for the prez to become commander-in-chief.

No. Article 2 Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Yo. You working?

I think that answers that question. He is NOT the commander and chief. BTW, did anyone see him laugh at military personnel when they saluted him at whatever groundbreaking ceremony he participated in this morning? He laughed, threw a mock salute, and laughed some more. The fucking gremlin…

Seems to me Webb’s exactly where we need him.

I would like to see this, is there a youtube of it?

I’ll have to look around for it. I caught it on MSNBC this morning.

Workin’ an a lurkin.

Thank you. The rest is worth quoting.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

if this is the only restriction on his power to pardon, he can indeed pardon himself from criminal acts, the only exclusion is if he were impeached, he couldn’t pardon himself against that trial

What it says is that he’s the commander in chief of the Army and the Navy- and ALSO the commander in chief of the MILITIAS (which no longer exist) if they are called up for a conflict.

if that is as derranged as it sounds it would be good to put on the tubes

Most think that he can’t pardon himself in ANY event-

that would be the national guard rw

I know that’s what most thing, however the constitution I believe is silent, which means he can do it, it restricts only his power to stop an impeachment, not to forgive crimes

Why does it take a former Republican to show learning-challenged Democrats how to deal with a bully and how to lead?

linkin’ and a thinkin’

Why does it take a former Republican to show learning-challenged Democrats how to deal with a bully and how to lead?

I’m assuming that’s a rhetorical question.

What did Webb change other than his name brand?

Apparently not.

zed upstairs

noodling and a googling

Best I can do right now
The whitehouse video from this morning. at about the 19:20 mark you can see Dubya take a ceremonial shovel-full of earth, then they’ve conveniently edited to take a side angle. Halfway down the line of officials on the righthand side you can see Dubya pop off a half salute and practically double over laughing. It’s shameful

And now, Firepups, to the grocery store!

Yup, I fail to see to see how the executive gains more power during time of war.

You are overly generous. Congress isn’t up to playing chess. They are moving checkers around a board.

I don’t think that’s right. Nothing in the few words of the Constitution’s grant of the pardon power restricts the President’s right to forgive his own crimes or those of others. True, there is no precedent, no practice or procedure that would justify it, and plenty in the Federalist Papers that suggest it would be a blatant abuse. (To the Rovian mind, that’s an opportunity, not a restriction.) The Constitution’s solution, of course, is impeachment and removal from office. The Democrats, however, seem to have lost that page.

The issue becomes would this S.Ct. rule such a pardon void? Frankly, I can’t imagine Obama’s DOJ or Congress seriously disputing it, even though the attempt to pardon oneself of undisclosed crimes should be laughed out of Washington.

Today’s Congressional Democrats are too cozy in their little incumbent mouse holes. When movement is essential — say, to snap up that rare cheese lobbyists leave in their oh, so safe looking traps — they prefer scurrying along the skirting board. The center of the room seems too open and vulnerable; there might be a sneering, leering GOP cat nearby that’s lost its bell.

the wh won’t cooperate. will run out the clock. still, it’s good to see a dem w/ balls.

Checkers, more like tiddly-winks …

“At the time, Bush said the provisions could inhibit his ‘ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and execute his authority as commander in chief.’ “

Isn’t the quote above pretty much the ongoing mantra used by Bush and the neo-cons to push the Unitary Executive notion? It seems to sum up the whole attitude that they have of not wanting to be “inhibit[ed]” by any of the other branches. And Bush has managed to ’stack’ the Supreme Court with a couple of additional justices who could easily come down in favor of the Unitary Executive in any challenge to Presidential power.

Are we in trouble?

Wake the f*** up will you?!
Jim Webb will be thrown into Schuumer and Reid’s trasheap of ” Good Democrats too pithy for us.”

No wonder so many Democrats end up on drugs – their need for common sense and dignity is shot in the face by party leaders.

And is why I’m back in a downer mood.

Since 1994 the Congressional insiders, led by the likes of McAulif, Schumer and Emanuel in particular, along with, Hoyer, Harmon, Rockefeller and other ‘centrists’ all may have just barely kept Bill in office for two terms.
But since then other Democrats, so sickened by their weakness and pandering beyond the call of a bi-partisan duty, gutted Congress of all opposition and kept out all but similar minded candidates who were not wanted by their Districts. Candidates like Feingold, Hackkett and Lamont plus hundreds of good strong party voices were all dumped lost the next 6 elections – demoralizing the party and voters into the dirt.

Now it now appears the same dumb ass strategizers, whose ‘great’ ideas lost 6 Congressional elections and 2 Presidencies have talked another good Democrat off the cliff.

Obama misses our point on the Telecom issue. It has everything to do with accountability -and little to do with ‘the Left’ having a vendetta against the Telecoms personally.

I don’[t mind him trying to appeal to a bigger crowd, but as past elections prove – with each new vote gained by a move to the Right, a solid Democrat loses maybe two base votes.

Centrists take the party back, Progressives take the party forward.
I thought Obama had managed an agreeable compromise.

He may squeak a win – great for the insiders seats.
But if you thought 8 years of Bush was bad, think of another 4 years of Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman whining in the Senate and Pelosi and Hoyer worried more about the interstate commerce of monkeys than they are in the state of our nation.

You tried your darndest Governor Dean, hope I see you in Vermont some day.

I can’t find the video you’re referancing, do you have a link?

New Jane a couple of flights up on whipping up on the FISA

Wake the f*** up will you?!

Well, if you’re offering to get the next round of coffee, I accept. Been pretty wide awake for a while now, not sure where you feel the deficit is.

Executive Order #1: Immediately rescind all signing statements made between January 2000 and January 2008.

Webb is doing a fine job and I am proud to have worked to get him elected.

He’s got a spine and puts his country before politics.

Hope this works, I haven’t linked anything using the comment feature yet. I tried to earlier and missed the fact that it didn’t work. sorry for the delayed response. At the 19:20ish mark here on the white house press video the event starts to unfold. Dubya is halfway down the line of officials on the right side of the shot.

Frick, why can’t I get a link to work? Help!

if it’s the official WH video, here’s the link to the transcript with a video link in the upper right.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..703-2.html