tk and sue. I'm not getting it.
Mayor Newsom asked the CA Supreme Court to clarify the balance of what he saw as two competing aspects of the CA State Constitution. Mayor Newsom lost. Since that time both he and the City of San Francisco have followed the ruling of the CA Supreme Court and nullified the marriages that had been performed.
You may have disagreed with Mayor Newsom's initial actions, but the Mayor has, quite clearly, followed the law, at great personal cost to thousands of his citizens, since LOSING his case before the CA Supreme Court.
The subject of this post, as I understood it, was President Bush, signing statements and what Congress and, in particular, Speaker Pelosi will do if the President issues a signing statement signaling his intention to disregard the letter of the law in an Iraq Supplemental that Congress passes and he signs.
It's an interesting topic. Legal scholars, conservative, liberal and everywhere in between are going to debate this in the coming months.
For myself, I prefer to argue on the facts but with respect for the other side. I think that's an American tradition that we've let slip. I know that I'll be reading conservative scholars on signing statements; I'd be a fool not to.
Whether Steve and I are "liberals" or not, and frankly I don't know what Steve's politics are, I think we are correct on the facts on Article II Section 3.
As an American citizen I think it is imperative to respect the law and the Constitution even as we debate it, challenge it and sometimes, change it. That's part of the process, too.
Ultimately I think legal scholars and historians of all stipes will not look kindly on President Bush's use of signing statements nor this administration's general attitude that they are somehow above laws as various as the Hatch Act, the Clean Air Amendment or the Geneva Convention.
I could be wrong, but I think it is, at the very least, an interesting topic of discussion and debate.
Posted by: kid oakland | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 07:56 PM