The point is it is for the last 30 years under the existing law the President having to make this decision, that it has always been possible to go to Federal court under Federal law if someone thought the President hadn't met the existing standard. They could take him to court. We are not changing that at all. In the last 30 years there has been one case. The one case ultimately said the President was within his authority to do exactly what he wanted to do-- one case in 30 years. The existing law says the standard the President has to meet is always subject to going to court saying he didn't meet the standard. We are not changing that at all.
John B. Breaux: “The point is it is for the last 30 years under the existing law the President having to make this decision, that it has…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the legal standards for presidential authority and court challenges.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
if we are going to look in the MARAD program for huge amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse compared to everything else, I would suggest that we're going to be spending a lot of time, with little results.
Senator Landrieu and I rise today to add our voices to those who have been calling for a comprehensive national solution to the asbestos litigation problem. Several members of both parties have recently come to the floor to discuss this…
this is a jobs bill. That is the title of the bill. Presumably a jobs bill is intended to create jobs and hopefully is created to create jobs in America. That is the legislation that is before us. It is absolutely essential that this…