Why that wasn't immediately treated as fraud and the Senator hauled off to jail is a mystery we'll only understand when we can read the Book of Life on Judgment Day.

...because he threatened to leave the Senate. Remember, all his cronies had to talk him down from the ledge...

Pathetic.

Ironically, Lee County is one of the hardest hit areas in the current housing downturn, so this truly would have been an "interchange to nowhere." (At least going east.) I wonder if those developers are still interested in those southwest Florida marshlands right now.

All my PowerPoints ever do is induce sleep and elicit cries of "will this be on the test?". Guess I should use Pinwheel and Grow With Color more often.

Orwell, this happened in 2005, when Republicans were in control of the House and Senate.

Don't let that stop you from spouting off about topics on which you know absolutely nothing about, though. Lord knows that's your only talent.

There was a period during the City State of Athens that when a new law was put forth for vote that if it passed,fine,if not the one who put forth the new law was killed. Could we return to that for a while? C-Span's ratings would go sky high!

What's more to the point is that it would have been perfectly legal had he inserted the earmark modification into the bill two minutes before it passed; it is only the fact that it was done after the fact (and counter to the Constitution) that might make it a crime. It's still graft pure and simple, but most of the time it's legalized graft.

Millions wise and trillions foolish, as the old saying goes. Billions goes for corruption in Iraq, and the Democrats go along to get along.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/print/coverprint.html

"...because he threatened to leave the Senate."

I think you're confusing Alaska Senator Ted Stevens with Alaska Representative Don Young.

BTW, Young is spending more on legal fees from his campaign account than his campaign is collecting in donations -- more than $1 million as of the end of March. Of course, he's not just defending himself against Coconut Road, but also Abramoff connections and the other scandal that's already put two (soon to be three) Alaska lawmakers behind bars.

This is so unfair. A statesman like Don Young sheds the parochialism that afflicts the rest of Congress and tries to help his contributors wherever they may be and he's pilloried for his breadth of vision. He's inclusive! He sees the big picture! He dares to dream big!

What happens when it is discovered that the president signed a different version of a bill than the one passed by the House and Senate? Does the answer depend on how much time has elapsed before discovery, and whether money has already been spent? Has the Supreme Court addressed the basic question of what version of the law (if any) is actually in force, and what procedures are to be used to correct this?

In an extreme case, Congress could pass a law, like, say, the USA Patriot Act, and some member of Congress rewrites it, replacing the entire text with new text saying that his wife is to be paid $1 million from the U.S. Treasury, and the president signs the latter version. It seems reasonable that neither version should be in force: the first because the president neither signed it nor was given the 10-day opportunity to veto it, and the second because Congress never passed it.

Therefore, I would argue that there is no valid 2006* highway bill in force, and I would further argue that Congress should send the duly-passed version to the president for his signature, and to avoid a real mess, the president should sign it. This should not be a problem for him because he already signed a very similar version.

*Kevin says 2005, but according to the New York Times it was a 2006 transportation bill.

Sorry, folks, but CREW is right, especially after the SCOTUS ruling earlier this year on the William Jefferson case. Ain't no way, no how, Don Young gets nailed on this. The staffer(s) who did the actual pencilwhip, as the story says? Sure, they can be tried, etc., because they're not actually Members of Congress.

But Young himself? As CREW notes, he will almost surely skate.

Beyond the reasons they list, I say again, look at the SCOTUS ruling earlier this year.

While the criminal prosecution is murky, Young faces very real jeopardy in Congress. This is the type of thing he could be expelled from Congress for, even if there is not any criminal investigations or indictments. There are precedents for Members being expelled for violating the integrity of the legislative process.

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10