The odds of a government shutdown this autumn are ever increasing. That's the scuttlebutt on Capitol Hill these days, with the White House and congressional leaders both digging in. And of course, little consideration is being given to the people this lack of approved budget will have on regular people.
Our concern and well-being are far down the list of considerations by Congress because they really don't care. Their pay is guaranteed. Or so it seems. But the fine state of Illinois, led by Governor Pat Quinn and Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka may have found a way around this -- at least temporarily.
Causing huge delays in passing a Pension Protection Act, Illinois congresspeople found that their paychecks were suspended. All it took was a simple stoke of the pen by the Governor who defunded the accounts that pay these legislators. With that, the comptroller ceased issuing checks.
An existing bill to the Constitution says changes in lawmaker salary cannot take effect during the term in which they were elected. But in the case of Illinois and with a similarly stated law, Quinn cited a prior court ruling and said he isn't changing their salary, he's just withholding the money to pay it. A technicality, but a legal one.
President Obama has executive powers, especially in what he can label a temporary state of emergency -- a lack of a functioning approved budget allowing the country to maintain law and order. A case of national security. We all know about that. He can suspend any constitutional rights (broadly interpreted as legal under Article II of the Constitution outlining executive powers). Just because Obama hasn't used these powers this way before, doesn't mean he doesn't have them.
Consider this excerpt re: Article II of the U.S. Constitution from Wikipedia:
A presidential proclamation "states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)". Presidents “define” situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders carry the same force of law as executive orders—the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside government while proclamations are aimed at those outside government. The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute, making them “delegated unilateral powers”. Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, the legal weight of presidential proclamations suggests their importance to presidential governance.
(The words or phrases underlined above are mine -- just for emphasis.)
Maybe it's time to call the congressional bluff. Let Boehner and the GOP stand in the way of a reasonable budget and shut the government down. Then see their paycheck's funding withheld as a non-essential funding expenditure during the crisis. Congress will still eventually get paid because that's mandated by law, but WHEN can be determined by an executive order. Requiring a SCOTUS ruling to overturn it will require SCOTUS to be in session -- and if they're not funded, they won't be around to do that.
How fast will these obstructionists endeavor to do the right thing when they won't have a valid paycheck to come home to, just like so many of us? My bet is pretty fast.
Can this be done legally? We won't know until it's been tried. Boehner and the GOP seem to want to play a game of bluff. Maybe two can play at this. Care to show your cajones, Mr. President?
She's getting blackmailed left and right. Hope it's some good stuff O'Reilly has. Via 44.
"I'm trying to be fair to Christine O'Donnell. She's been on the program a couple of times, and we have some kind of crazy stuff that she said. We're not going to play it yet. I don't think it's relevant - yet. We still like Ms. O'Donnell to come on the Factor. I'm not in the business of injuring her. I'd like to see if she's the better candidate."
Right-wing activist Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com and other conservative anti-Obama websites [issued] a direct threat, approaching blackmail, to the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. Breitbart is angry that Attorney General Holder has not opened a federal investigation into ACORN and he issued a threat of releasing more tapes during the 2010 elections, unless Holder complies with his demands.
Blackmail. I'm sure Breitbart wishes it was whitemail, but when you put yourself in criminal jeopardy, beggars can't be choosers.
Breitbart together with conservative operatives James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, released another heavily edited ACORN tape this week, which seems to show an ACORN employee assisting the two with an illegal prostitution scheme. [...]
“It was Hannah and James and me who were being investigated. That’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.”
Yes, that's right. Holder made him do it. Holder made him issue a threat, too. It's all the Attorney General's fault, because Breitbart is not in the least bit responsible.
Besides, he's probably just cranky because the paper he works for is shutting down.
“And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know we have more tapes–its not just ACORN. And we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle — or else, if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have. We will comply with you. We will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward, but are fearful of this organization and the retribution — that they fear that this is a dangerous organization.”
“So if you will get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes, and if you don’t give us the tapes [sic], we will revisit these tapes come election time.”
ACORN is so dangerous, so lethal, such a threat to America that Breitfart, er -bart (typo) felt it necessary to issue a threat of his own... to the nation's head legal guy. Smart move.
Why would he take such a chance? Because he's mad, that's why! Because he and the secret videotapers are being sued, that's why! Because he's a fool, that's why!
There is also an investigation in California launched by Attorney General Jerry Brown at the request of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which has infuriated Breitbart.
I don't know a whole lot about legal stuff, but IMHO, Breitbart's in a heap-o'-trouble.
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Donate to The Political Carnival
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.
Donate to The Political Carnival