Rep. John Conyer's (D-MI) is suing President Bush over the enactment of the Federal Deficit Rediction Act. Shorter version: The House and Senate passed different versions of the bill and even though they went to conference, the House never voted on the version passed by the Senate as a House clerk changed a provision in the Senate version and Bush signed it into law. Bush can't sign a bill unless it has been agreed to by both the House and Senate.

The Government moved to dismiss (pdf) Rep. Conyer's lawsuit, and last night, he filed his motion and brief in opposition.

No one in the House of Representatives voted on the version of the bill which was signed into law. The Senate version was never presented in the House for a vote. .... The Deficit Reduction Act needed to be passed by the House of Representatives in the same form that it passed the Senate. The Act never did and thus the Act is not valid. A law is not validly enacted if even "one of paragraph of that text" is different.

This seems pretty basic to me. The House members were disenfranchised. If this process is approved, what's to stop Bush from signing into law any bill passed by only one house of Congress? As Conyers said:

The House of Representatives today failed to overide Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill. The bill is now dead for the year.

....Within hours of the East Room ceremony, the House hurriedly took up a measure to override the veto, but the vote, 235 to 193, fell 51 short of the two-thirds majority required. Fifty-one Republicans, 183 Democrats and 1 independent voted to override, while 4 Democrats joined 179 Republicans in voting to keep the veto intact.

After his speaking gig in Aspen, Karl Rove came to Denver for a sit-down interview with the editorial board of the Denver Post. What he said:

• Bush will exercise the first veto of his presidency to jettison the stem cell research bill if it passes the Senate (it's already passed the House.) The chief sponsors of the bi-partisan House bill, Colorado's Diana DeGette and Delaware's Michael Rogers, upon hearing the news, are now asking for their own pow-wow with Bush. Rove said there are not enough votes to overcome a veto. DeGette's comment: I'm appalled that Bush would use the first veto of his presidency to veto a bill that could help 110 million people and their families."

Congress is voting tomorrow on an amendment, introduced by U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), to bar the U.S. Justice Department -- which includes the DEA -- from spending taxpayer money on raiding, arresting, and prosecuting patients who are using medical marijuana in the 11 states where it's legal.

Action Alert time: Go here and let your Congressperson know how you want them to vote.

If you agree that sick and suffering patients should not have to live in fear of armed federal agents breaking down their doors, this is your chance to do something about it. The bipartisan Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment would prohibit the U.S. Department of Justice -- which includes the DEA -- from spending taxpayer money to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana patients in the 11 states where medical marijuana is legal.

Via NORML:

Eighty percent of the American public supports the physician-supervised use of cannabis as a medicine, and they do not wish to see their tax dollars wasted by those in Congress who would target the sick and dying in their overzealous war on drugs. Last year, 161 members of Congress voted in favor of Hinchey-Rohrabacher, but we need 57 more members to join with them to stop Washington's war on patients.

The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning began examining President Bush's use of signing statements. The ACLU says (press release received by e-mail, but will be up on their site shortly):

"President Bush needs a lesson in Civics 101," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The executive is supposed to enforce the laws Congress passes, and respect the separation of powers that define our country. But in this president's mind, he is above the law. His lack of respect for the rule of law and his abuse of power are evident, and we hope that today's hearing will highlight this administration's disregard for the law."

President Bush's signing statements have in most cases said that he will refuse to enforce part of a law because it conflicts with his extraordinary claims of presidential powers. The statements have covered numerous issues, including a congressional ban on the use of torture, affirmative action rules, protection for the integrity of scientific research and whistleblower protections. Such steps, the ACLU noted, defy the constitutional powers of Congress, and undermine the system of checks and balances.

by TChris

Despite the testy letter that Sen. Arlen Specter wrote to Vice President Cheney, and despite this article's description of Specter as a "subpoena-wielding member of Congress who is ready to force a showdown over what he sees as the Bush administration's intrusion into legislative territory," Specter has reportedly "modified his stance" on the administration's warrantless spying on Americans by proposing "legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency."

Complying with FISA would be an "option"? How often would this lawless administration choose that option? The administration doesn't feel bound by FISA now, given the president's belief that he has the inherent, king-like authority to decide which laws apply to the executive branch and which can be ignored.

Specter said "he just wanted to move the bill forward so it can be amended later to insert more safeguards." The current law -- FISA -- has plenty of safeguards. What's the point of introducing bad legislation to replace good legislation that the president feels free to disregard?

by TChris

Conservative lunacy month in the Senate is off to a poor start. Republicans couldn't muster even a bare majority to support a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Turning their attention from their ultra-whacky base to their ultra-wealthy base, Republicans tried again -- despite an expensive war and rising deficits -- to repeal the estate tax. When it became apparent that the effort would fail, some senators tried to negotiate a compromise that would have exempted more estates from a tax that already affects fewer than 2 percent of all estates. Only 57 senators voted to cut off debate, three votes short of the number needed to move the legislation forward.

"Repealing the estate tax during this time of fiscal crisis would be incredibly irresponsible and intellectually dishonest," [Sen. George] Voinovich said.

Next up in conservative lunacy month: the flag burning amendment. This NY Times editorial worries that this one might actually have a chance of passing, thanks in part to Democratic senators who are willing to sell out the Constitution to pander to people who believe a symbol of freedom is more important than actual freedom.

by TChris

If Congress won't investigate the president, it's up to the ABA. The trade group for lawyers has already investigated domestic spying. Now it's tackling the president's reliance on signing statements.

The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.

The signing statements task force includes former Rep. Mickey Edwards, a Republican from Oklahoma, who explains:

"I think one of the most critical issues in the country right now is the extent to which the White House has tried to expand its powers and basically tried to cut the legislative branch out of its own constitutionally equal role, and the signing statements are a particularly egregious example of that."

by TChris

Congressman James Oberstar argues that the best way to remember those in the military who sacrified their lives is to "keep our promises to those still with us."

The U.S. government must once again fulfill our moral obligation to those who have fought for freedom and democracy. ... The comprehensive New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century will strengthen benefits for our men and women in uniform today, and it will provide long overdue benefits for the veterans and military retirees who have already served. For those returning from the front lines - 18,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq alone - we are continuing our efforts to invest adequately in veterans' health care. Our New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century focuses on improving veterans' health care, including mental health care, to meet the needs of our returning troops. More than 30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment with the Veterans Administration (VA), and that problem will only worsen with the growing numbers of returning service men and women.

Rep. Allen Boyd shares that goal. Instead of moving forward, Republicans this month approved a budget resolution that would underfund veterans' health care in the future, despite evidence that veterans' access to health care is already severely underfunded.

The Senate today voted to approve the building of 370 miles of fences along the Mexico U.S. border. The cost is estimated at "$3.2 million per mile, more than $900 million for 300 miles."

On the flip side, the Senate okayed a plan allowing undocumented residents who have been in the U.S. for two years and who have not incurred either a felony conviction or three misdemeanor convictions to remain in the U.S.

The Senate is holding hearings all week on the Hagel-Martinez bill (S. 2611)passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in April. The votes today were on amendments to the bill. Here is a daily updated chart of all Amendments and outcomes, thanks to AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association.) The first one taken up was the Kyl-Cornyn Amendment (No. 4027.) It passed by a vote of 99 to 0. This is the Amendment that bars undocumented residents with criminal records from remaining in the U.S. AILA has the particulars of the Amendment (pdf).

by TChris

For the reasons TalkLeft discussed here and here and here and here and in many other posts, the Real ID Act is a bad law. TalkLeft's take:

This is a quick fix that won't do anything to stop terrorists or enhance our safety. It will only further diminish our privacy rights. Can anyone say, "Your Papers Please?"

As TalkLeft predicted here, states are starting to balk at implementing the law.

They say the law -- which requires states to use sources like birth certificates and national immigration databases to verify that people applying for or renewing driver's licenses are American citizens or legal residents -- will be too expensive and difficult to put in place by the May 2008 deadline. Another issue is the privacy impact of the requirement that states share, through databases, the personal information needed for a driver's license.

by TChris

Now that public support for the president has weakened, Sen. Arlen Specter seems to have rediscovered one of the central tasks of the legislature: to act as a check against the executive by exercising oversight of presidential power.

''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Some need? There's been a compelling need for half a decade. Where have you been, Senator?

Specter says the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings in July "into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years." We can predict that Attorney General Gonzales will haul out one of the administration's standard responses: the president's power to protect the nation (from whatever) is limitless, and his interpretations of the Constitution are more important than those of Congress or the courts.