Post #254,066
5/1/06 3:31:35 PM
|
Bush ignores hundreds of laws
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.
[...]
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
"He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.
[...]
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.
After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.
Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.
Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not "lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.
On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.
[link|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=ful|way more here]
lincoln
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #254,067
5/1/06 3:36:24 PM
|
I wonder why he even bothers agitating for a line item veto.
|
Post #254,072
5/1/06 3:46:32 PM
|
Well I always argued that Congress couldnt
pass laws against supporting the contra's so I guess raygun was right. thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #254,077
5/1/06 4:16:13 PM
|
Run! Get out... just evidence of what we already know
So, Bush puts in writing his assertian that he can interpret the US Constitution as he wishes without judicial review nor giving feedback to Congress. Someone's dug up the proper documentation that he's violating the law and Congress still does nothing. Maybe impeachment is an ugly word and both political parties have someone lined up for he next election who they trust not to pull the same stunts. Maybe the electorate are fed up with endless war and are just waiting for the current one to finish.
No? Run! Get out... you know the rest.
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #254,107
5/1/06 11:46:30 PM
|
Matt, that particular thing you do is really useless
Most people don't have the option; even if they had the money, being able to move to and make a living in another country is not easy at the best of times. It's becoming annoying.
I think W's a clown, as do most of the folks here. Telling them to leave their home is not being particularly useful.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #254,109
5/2/06 12:03:15 AM
|
Some of us do have the option
I've seriously considered it. I can do it in about 3 years without too much trouble. If things don't improve in 2008, it is likely that I will.
Of course the world isn't big enough to get out of the way of the potential disaster if Bush really screws the pooch. :-(
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #254,115
5/2/06 7:49:32 AM
|
Its his hook now
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #254,126
5/2/06 10:05:45 AM
|
Time for a new one, is all I'm saying.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #254,124
5/2/06 10:03:46 AM
|
It's sarcasm, jake123, sarcasm!
And even if it wasn't, it's still not a bad idea....
jb4 "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't." — Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #254,129
5/2/06 10:27:22 AM
|
It's meant to be ridiculous
It is meant to be a true word spoken in jest; a truth hidden in absurdity; an emphasis that reality is becoming absurd. I make it outrageous to mean that it should not be taken literally.
I also expect it to be used much less. The Bush approval is approaching the 'eat babies on live TV' minimum. The heroic, war time leader is no longer immune to criticism. Preachers who ban Democrat voters from their congregation are made to U-turn. That hysterical theocracy looks far less likely.
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #254,151
5/2/06 12:52:26 PM
|
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far...yet
That hysterical theocracy looks far less likely. Let's hold of on that one for a bit, OK? Vigilance is still required!
jb4 "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't." — Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|