I just placed calls to the offices of Tom Cole, James Inhofe, and Tom Coburn to ask them if they were going to respond to the President's apparent claim that he can sign legislation into law and then add an addendum that says essentially, "I really don't have to obey this."
For the record, I was nice and polite. Informed the people that I was a constituent and that I had a comment/question. Cole's office here in Norman was essentially clueless. I might call the Washington office. Inhofe's office (in Washington) just took the message. Coburn's office guy was funny. I did my whole spiel and then asked if the Senator had a statement. He said, "uh, on immigration?" I said, firmly (but politely) "no, on signing statements essentially undoing what he had just signed into law." I asked all of them to consider if they would allow this if the President's last name were Clinton instead of Bush.
Like calling those three will do anything. Sigh.
3 comments:
"On immigration?" That's an interesting and telling remark, and one that could be used to great effect.
For example, Bush supports a sort of neo-bracero guest worker program, but many Republicans do not. It would be interesting to ask them if, having just had their ideal immigration reforms signed into law, they would be ok with the president issuing a signing statement telling them and their policies to go Cheney themselves.
good point. I think Coburn is one of those people. Interestingly enough, his website has one of those active images that shows the national debt. I wonder if he holds Bush accountable for any of that?
It's starting to make a certain kind of sense. Bush pushed us into war with Iraq so he could have unlimited power claiming it under the "Commander-In-Chief" provision. I wonder if he's planning on having the Pope crown him emperor? The Holy American Empire???
Post a Comment