IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: “Rudy Awakening”
Woah Sally, don’t pull any punches. What a well written piece, and well researched and documented too. I’m so glad that Mr. Kmiec has brought this out in the open for all to see. It shows that Governor Romney is beyond measure the better person to be our next President.
From Governor Romney’s Press Release from today:
“Rudy Awakening –
Giuliani’s The-Constitution-Made-Me-Do-It Excuse Just Doesn’t Wash.”
By Douglas W. Kmiec
National Review Online
October 10, 2007
“Tuesday night’s Michigan debate was very revealing. The debate revealed the significant executive-leadership differences between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. When it gets down to specific cases, Mayor Giuliani is dependent upon others for direction and guidance and is just as likely to fall into mistaken ideas as not. At the same time, the debate revealed how, despite his protestations to the contrary, Giuliani is not really a supporter of conservative legal thinking.
“The facts on who supports spending restraint and tax reduction are plain. Romney does. Giuliani doesn’t. Giuliani’s lame excuse that ‘the-Constitution-made-him-spend’ just doesn’t cut it. Yes, Giuliani is right that the Supreme Court invalidated President Clinton’s use of the statutory line-item veto. But this is nothing Giuliani, who brought the case, should be proud of. Quite the contrary, it is the handiwork of the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.
“The central issue in the case was whether Congress can authorize the president, after he signed legislation, to not spend all the money authorized. Mitt Romney’s answer is an unequivocal: ‘You bet!’ Giuliani’s answer seems to be: ‘No, and give me the money, so I can spend it.’
“The notion that the Constitution made him bring the case in order to spend the money is ludicrous on its own terms. Even worse, is Giuliani’s failure to see what the result of his dubious litigation was: to deprive the nation as a whole of an important mechanism of bipartisan spending restraint; a spending restraint mechanism that exists in 43 of the states and that was pleaded for by President Reagan on multiple occasions.”
…
“Moreover, as Justice Scalia explained at length, presidents throughout history had been authorized by Congress on a piecemeal basis to, upon certain findings, decline to spend. The line-item veto act merely gave that a more permanent and sound legal footing – until Giuliani came onto the scene with his liberal-leaning litigation.
“But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Justice Scalia directly, who wrote:
‘Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the President to ‘decline to spend’ any item of spending contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional. . . .The title of the Line Item Veto Act, which was perhaps designed to simplify for public comprehension, or perhaps merely to comply with the terms of a campaign pledge, has succeeded in faking out the Supreme Court. The President’s action it authorizes . . .does not offend Art. I, § 7; and insofar as the substance of that action is concerned, it is no different from what Congress has permitted the President to do since the formation of the Union.’
“Mitt Romney is pledged to name to the Supreme Court individuals with the intellectual qualities and philosophy of judicial restraint of Justice Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. That is a meaningful pledge coming from Mitt Romney because he understands the practical consequences of a proper interpretation of the Constitution for the American taxpayer. Unlike Giuliani, he knows that the Constitution does not stand in the way of a bipartisan effort to limit runaway federal spending. Giuliani also says he likes these justices, but it’s not clear he understands why. Like Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Supreme Court, Giuliani was simply ‘faked out’ from taking a responsible fiscal action that the Constitution most certainly did not preclude.”…
Douglas W. Kmiec is chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and co-chair of the advisory committee on the Constitution and the courts for Romney for President.
To read the full op-ed, please see: The National Review
October 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
over my head but the case was decided 6-3 with Justice Thomas, conservative and whom I like, in the majority. I would like to hear more on the subject–I personally would like for the President to have the authority just find a way to make it legal.
I think rudy won that round in the debate at least.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Carl,
I think Douglas is just saying that Rudy isn’t really committed to this issue. If he were, he wouldn’t just punt by referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling. What if he said the same thing about abortion: “It doesn’t matter what your opinion is, Roe decided the legality of abortion…” When Rudy does, he sounds like a wishy-washy moderate of the kind conservatives hate to have on the bench. I thought it was duplicitous of him to say it’s unconstitutional and then say “… but I am in favor of the line-item veto.” What does that mean? He is in favor of it, but he wouldn’t do anything to get it? Did I misunderstand what he said?
I don’t know if I agree with your analysis of that round of the debate. I think Rudy was just trying to sound smarter than Romney. But Rudy is a lawyer, so he can’t do that without sounding like he’s looking for some kind of legal loophole to wriggle through. It’s a hazard of the profession.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Rudy claims this was a victory over Clinton.
Wasn’t the Line-Item-Veto made popular by Reagan in the 80’s (Dem. Congress didn’t give it to him) and then created by the Republican congress in the 90’s.
If this is true, it sounds like he defeated the Republican congress as much as he defeated Clinton. :S
October 10th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
You’re correct there, Fran. About the Rudy vs. Mitt exchange during the debate, what was up with Rudy getting to go first AND last in the exchange? Mitt had more to say, but didn’t get a chance to rebut.