Can Obama strike the Stupak amendment off the House bill? q

Rephrase, if this crap makes it past conference and the Senate can O remove it? And I hope we organize hard enough to remove the Stupak shit out of conference.

Women's group needs to start screaming about this and flood the White House.

It's gonna be crazy.

If it survives conference and the Senate he will have to veto the whole bill or sign it with the amendment.

But when the House and Senate bills go to committee to be merged, it could be taken out or changed. (I think.)

Unlike B*sh, President Obama respects the law, the separation of the branches of government, and the authority of Congress. "When a President signs legislation enacted by Congress, he may issue a written statement commenting on his actions. Signing statements are often merely ceremonial, praising or criticizing the law or lawmakers or remarking on the importance of the issue addressed by the law. Such signing statements are often called "rhetorical" signing statements. However, other signing statements may challenge Congress's authority to act or assert that that the president will not enforce the law as written. This type of signing statement is often called a "constitutional" signing statement: a president will object to a provision of law by citing a provision of the Constitution, or by citing a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Constitution, or by bare assertion (without citation to authority) that the law offends the Constitution or invades the power of the Executive. Or the president may announce that he will interpret the law to avoid constitutional difficulties that he perceives." (B*sh just did it when he didn't like the laws Congress passed.)

Quote from the Boston Globe: April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

is that I doubt that Obama will misuse this authority. B*sh's signing statements crossed the line from legitimate reservations to unauthorized power grabs. Obama, who so far hasn’t argued for a “Unitary Executive” or other theories of far-reaching executive power, seems to be issuing statements that at least on their face comport with generally accepted understandings of the law. Big difference.

more conservative then the House.

it barely passed as it is. They will try if they think they can get it passed anyway, but I don't hold out hope.

And there is no way in he'll a conservative Dem is representing the House