Okay, this press briefing by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is just filled with silliness and a clear lack of understanding of how the govnerment works and the point of legislation she worked on. Here are some of the juicier tidbits:
When asked about campaign finance reform legislation moving through Congress:
The point of the most recent campaign finance reform was to separate Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money. ...The problem was the connection between raising millions of soft dollars from individual special interest donors by policymakers in Washington, D.C.
In 2003 Nancy Pelosi's leadership PACs (PAC to the Future and Team Majority) settled a case for violations of the campaign finance law. But BCRA, the original Shays-Meehan bill did not "separate Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money" but rather limited the kinds of money they could raise. In fact, Members of Congress continue to raise huge sums of money.
On Social Security:
Q: Ms. Pelosi, do House Democrats or Senate Democrats plan to offer their own Social Security proposal, and if so, what might it say? And if not, why not?
Ms. Pelosi: Are we going to offer our own Social Security proposal? ...We have been, I think, very effective in saying our plan is to save Social Security, to stop privatization, to stop the raid on Social Security, and to strengthen solvency. That is our plan.
The question was whether there is going to be a Democratic Social Security plan. This answer tells me "No--we can't even answer a question straight, why would be put together a plan."
On the Kelo decision and legislation to withhold federal funds from states and localities for use in eminent domain purchases:
Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.
Now aside from the inability to make a distintion between separation of powers between the Judicial and Legislative branches and the separation of church and state, this particular answer is full of stupidity.
First, the power of the purse (over federal funds) lies with Congress and Congress alone. Congress may make any stipulation on the use of funds it gives to states and local governments, including prohibiting funds for the use of eminent domain purchases. The Supreme Court has held the exercise of this power to be constitutional time and time again. It is not a separation of powers issue for Congress to exercise its power of the purse to prevent actions legal under a Supreme Court decision to be used by the states. The legislation does not prevent eminent domain purchases by state and local governments permitted under Kelo, only prevents using federal funds. You would think that that the Senior Democrat in the House of Representatives would understand the power of the purse--but apparently not.
Next, the Courts rely upon the legislative and in particular the executive branch to enforce their decisions. The Courts have no independent enforcement power. Again, the Minority leaders should know this.
Here is a fun little exchange that again, points to a clear lack of understanding of the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of government, a misunderstanding that the leader of House Democrats should not have:
It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?
Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.
Um, not to point out the obvious, but the Supreme Court is not God, nor is it even an oracle for God. (Wow talk about the problems of separation of church and state if the Supreme Court were an oracle for God). The court is not infallible (see the history of Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scot decision for more details). Often a decision of the Supreme Court becomse a starting point for political debate (see Roe v. Wade or Bakke decisions). Kelo is simply the latest in a long line of cases that have sparked a prolonged and meaningful debate about govermental powers.
Now, if Congress wanted to change the law and decision of hte Supreme Court they could, by passing legislation. The Fifth Amendment already protects against uncompensated takings, the Congress could simply define better what constitutes a proper taking. A simple majority in both Houses and a signature by the President would do that. A constitutional amendment is not necessary.
Nancy Pelosi aspires to be Speaker (assuming she could get enough Democrats elected to the House--a marginal proposition at best). The speaker is just two hearbeats away from the White House and some one with such a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works should be no where near the White House, let alone be someone who could be in a position to occupy the White House. It is amazing how uneducated a senior member of the House of Representatives can be about basic constitutional concepts. Scary to say the least.
U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Transcript of Today's Pelosi Press Conference"
No comments:
Post a Comment