Democrats Move to Limit Bush's Authority (again)

[aps]

It's called a "lawsuit".

Ha ha ha--thank you for enlightening our Constitutional scholar.

 

[Goobieman]

Ha ha ha--thank you for enlightening our Constitutional scholar.

Yes -- but were YOU enlightened?

Congress and the President dont just approach the SCotUS and say 'what do you think?" -- a law is passed bu Congress and then signed into law by the President and them someone sues soemone.

Thing is, the President wont sign any law he doesnt like -- and so unless Congress overrides his veto (so VERY unlikely) the law never gets enacted. No law is enacted, no one sues.

So then how do you suppose Congress and the President and that they could possibly take it to the judiciary if they disagree?

And since you didnt address the point:
Please show me how Congress, absent a delcaration of war, has the power to authorize military action against another country.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes -- but were YOU enlightened?

Congress and the President dont just approach the SCotUS and say 'what do you think?" -- a law is passed bu Congress and then signed into law by the President and them someone sues soemone.

Thing is, the President wont sign any law he doesnt like -- and so unless Congress overrides his veto (so VERY unlikely) the law never gets enacted. No law is enacted, no one sues.

So then how do you suppose Congress and the President and that they could possibly take it to the judiciary if they disagree?

And since you didnt address the point:
Please show me how Congress, absent a delcaration of war, has the power to authorize military action against another country.

That's a good point, if a law is not passed there is no legal issue. I'm not sure that the authorization of war is a law that requires presidential signature as opposed to an inherent power of congress? For example, I don't think the president has to authorize a declaration of war, as Congress has that authority in the Constitution. We are talking about expressions of consent to the executive as opposed to a statute.

 

[aps]

Yes -- but were YOU enlightened?

Congress and the President dont just approach the SCotUS and say 'what do you think?" -- a law is passed bu Congress and then signed into law by the President and them someone sues soemone.

Thing is, the President wont sign any law he doesnt like -- and so unless Congress overrides his veto (so VERY unlikely) the law never gets enacted. No law is enacted, no one sues.

So then how do you suppose Congress and the President and that they could possibly take it to the judiciary if they disagree?

And since you didnt address the point:
Please show me how Congress, absent a delcaration of war, has the power to authorize military action against another country.

I never stated that they go to the Supreme Court to get their answer. The judiciary is comprised of federal district and appeals courts, in case you didn't know.

 

[Goobieman]

I never stated that they go to the Supreme Court to get their answer. The judiciary is comprised of federal district and appeals courts, in case you didn't know.

What, exactly, does that change?
What district/appelate courts have jurisdiction to hear something like this?
And why do you suppose that any such decisions wont wind up at the Supreme Court?