Wednesday, February 01, 2006
So that I could say I went first...
The key here is first, not substantively...
Nonetheless, I did watch SOTU last night, even after I said I wasn't going to get out of bed to do so. And no, I didn't watch it so that I could drink.
All told, I thought it was a good speech. When the Dems cheered their obstructionism over Social Security reform, I immediately thought badly of it - not from a purely political stance, but because I thought they were courting instant karma. Lo and behold, they got their comeuppance. I don't take much of a liking to Republicans getting the last laugh, but this time, they earned it.
In any event, the one thing that best took my attention away from the quiz-grading I was doing might surprise some...or it might not.
Is it just me, or was the President trying to get the Congress to act unconstitutionally by charging them to deliver the line-item veto?
Someone with more time can delve into the issue, and perhaps does so by addressing the following issues that I have:
|
Nonetheless, I did watch SOTU last night, even after I said I wasn't going to get out of bed to do so. And no, I didn't watch it so that I could drink.
All told, I thought it was a good speech. When the Dems cheered their obstructionism over Social Security reform, I immediately thought badly of it - not from a purely political stance, but because I thought they were courting instant karma. Lo and behold, they got their comeuppance. I don't take much of a liking to Republicans getting the last laugh, but this time, they earned it.
In any event, the one thing that best took my attention away from the quiz-grading I was doing might surprise some...or it might not.
Is it just me, or was the President trying to get the Congress to act unconstitutionally by charging them to deliver the line-item veto?
Someone with more time can delve into the issue, and perhaps does so by addressing the following issues that I have:
- Should I not take Clinton v. City of New York to be the settled law of the land? I must confess to not knowing all of the ins and outs of the decision. Is there something there (that I obviously don't know about) that gives the Congress and the President any wiggle-room at all?
- What can be said about the majority in the aforementioned case? Does the President view his changes to the court as having just the sort of potential to change things on a second-go-round? Because what happens in those first two steps up the ladder...well, you know I'm no lawyer, but I can guess how the District Courts and the Courts of Appeal are going to rule.
- Does the President have such an eye to putting together a legacy that he is looking for the political capital to amend the Constitution? Seems ambitious, but W's got that in spades. (It's one of the things I admire about the President that doesn't make me any more likely to vote for him - a dead-letter issue to be sure, but still worth noting lest I get called on it.)
|
