Here's a post I responded to:
Sure, my screen name at dailykos sounds silly when reported in the mainstream media. I'll readly concede that. When I started blogging five years ago at dailykos, like many, many bloggers at the time, I had no idea where this was headed.
Fwiw, Little Green Footballs and Instapundit don't exactly work for a mainstream audience either.
I told Jonathan Kaplan, one of the authors of that piece, today that I would have been happy if he'd used my real name, or my real name plus my dkos moniker in that article for the Hill. The "kid oakland" bit is a distraction to anyone who is not familiar with the blogs. Whatever you think of that, my reporting was accurate.
Speaker Pelosi's conference call has continued to spark debate and discussion on all sides. That's a good thing. That's what she wanted to happen both on the Iraq Supplemental and as a result of one "liberal" blogger's very valid question: what to make the President's use of signing statements specifically as it relates to the Iraq Supplemental.
Re: Article II Sec. 3
I'm not seeing it.
This:
"he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper"
seems to define this power with "on extraordinary occasions" and "in Case of Disagreement between them, with respect to Time of Adjournment."
At any rate the Constitution clearly spells out Congress's role and powers in Article 1 and Section 4 has clear language about Congress controlling when it meets...by passing laws:
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."
And isn't that what we are all talking about here? The power of Congress to pass laws and the obligation of citizens and the government, including the President, to obey them?
Posted by: kid oakland | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 04:51 PM