pvolcko wrote:I think it is entirely lacking in common sense.
OK....But at least now we can discuss the "meat" of the proposals without an "Unconstitutional" dismissal that we are both unqualified to render.
pvolcko wrote:The pardon power is in Article II Section 2 and can not be taken away by mere legislation. We don't need a supreme court ruling to know that.
In point of fact, we do. Congress routinely modify s & interprets many sections of our Constitution & it is only when such modification is challenged that the Supreme Court gets involved. The point that you are missing in all this is that this legislation would require a compromise of both sides in order to pass. Of course the President could veto it, but if he wants a bailout bill (which he is desperate to get to save his legacy, in his eyes) he would have to accept some distatsteful (to him) parts to get it. It's called "Negotiation/Compromise" & this President is just unfamiliar with how that works!
..(His normal "My Way Or The Highway" attitude won't work any more & he knows it.)
If he wants his "Rescue Bill" he will have to swallow some bitter medicine to get it.....for a change!
pvolcko wrote:However, the issue is moot. Like with term #3, Senate republicans would filibuster a bill with such a provision in it, House republicans would stage a protest on the floor and grind procedure to a halt with unending parliamentary maneuvers.
They could indeed do that...... But they wont because if they want a "Bailout Bill" (or as they like to deceive us with a "Rescue Bill") they will also be forced to finally swallow that same bitter medicine.
pvolcko wrote:As to the first item, I'm not sure what a sunset date of 2/1/2009 would look like in practice. Also, it would give congress and the next president all of 11 days, and that's if you include inauguration day itself.
This is a valid argument & one that could be changed through legislative negotiation. I picked that date merely as a starting point for negotiations & to point out the need for a speedy action to arrive at a final solution.
pvolcko wrote:There is nothing to stop the next congress and administration from reexamining the bailout law and passing a new law making adjustments or completely scrapping it and starting from scratch
I'm not so sure about that Paul. It happens quite often that one Congress is able to tie that hands of succeeding Congresses with their legislation. This is a much more complicated issue than your above statement would seem to divulge.( If it was so easy to do, then why are many laws written with specific "Sunset" clauses in them to guarantee the law will expire as of a certain date? Why not just overrule them, legislatively?)