Bush "oversteps constitutional bounds"
Bush "oversteps constitutional bounds"
#1Bush "oversteps constitutional bounds"
Posted: 6/19/07 at 9:33am
Why am I still surprised at how low this President can go and how little he follows the Constitution.
From CNN
'Signing statements' add presidential spin to new laws
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration sometimes fails to follow all provisions of laws after President Bush attaches "signing statements" meant to interpret or restrict the legislation, congressional examiners say.
Signing statements, in which the president appends bills he is signing into law with statements reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard provisions on national security and constitutional grounds, have become a major sticking point in the power struggle between Congress and the White House.
Lawmakers who asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study said it was further proof that the Bush White House oversteps constitutional bounds in ignoring the will of Congress.
"Too often, the Bush administration does what it wants, no matter the law. It says what it wants, no matter the facts," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, said Monday. Byrd and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, requested the report.
The White House, in issuing the statements, has argued that the president has a right to control executive branch employees and officers, that he has authority to withhold from Congress information sometimes considered privileged or that Congress should not interfere with his constitutional role as commander in chief.
The GAO report, which did not assess the merits of the president's arguments, said signing statements go back at least to President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s, while citing other congressional studies that such statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan administration.
Conyers made signing statements the topic of his committee's first oversight hearing after Democrats took over control of Congress in January.
The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written.
In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.
Byrd and Conyers said Bush has issued 149 signing statements, 127 of which raised some objection. They said the statements often raise multiple objections, resulting in more than 700 challenges to distinct provisions of law.
The GAO said signing statements accompanied 11 of the 12 spending bills in 2006, singling out 160 specific provisions in those bills.
The issue gained attention last year after Bush -- after lengthy negotiations on renewal of the Patriot Act with language backed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, that banned the torture of detainees -- attached a signing statement in which he reserved the right to interpret that provision.
The White House defends the statements, saying presidents have the prerogative to address matters of national security and express reservations about the constitutionality of legislation.
"We expect to continue to use statements where appropriate, on a bill-by-bill basis," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "The opportunities in this Congress have been limited since we've mostly only received bills to name post offices and federal buildings."
The American Bar Association, at an annual meeting last year, approved a resolution condemning use of signing statements, saying presidents should not resort to diluting or changing laws passed by Congress rather than using their veto powers.
#2re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 9:50amHow did we ever allow this country to be run by people with no care for the rule of law?
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#2re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:05amThis is what happens when people who hate government are in government. I'd write more but I have to drop Namo, Jr. off at Medea's Day Care Center.
#3re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:06am
Its not just Bush - Shame on the Democatic Party and all of us (Americans) for letting them (Bush and his administration) get away with it.
For all of those who haven't yet - read Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason". Personally I think it should be mandatory reading.
#4re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:07amHe's going to be our next president.
#5re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:30am
From your mouth.....
Imagine how much better off this country would be if the Supreme Court hadn't handed the presidency to that petty , evil, little man and we would have gotten the president who was elected.
How can the US promote democracies in the world when Bush has done nothing but tried to turn this country into a dictatorship?
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#6re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:32am
"all of us (Americans) for letting them (Bush and his administration) get away with it."
That's crazy talk. Anyway, do you guys know if the new iPhone will be able to hold all my Broadway cast recordings?
Gothampc
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
#7re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:35am
"I'd write more but I have to drop Namo, Jr. off at Medea's Day Care Center."
I now understand the argument the pro-choice people are making.
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#8re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:45amWhatever works.
#9re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds'
Posted: 6/19/07 at 10:59am
TheatreDiva90016
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
#10re: Bush 'oversteps constitutional bounds' and needs to be spanked.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 11:36am
George Bush has finally done something that he promised when he first became President. He claimed to be a 'uniter' and not a 'divider'. Well, it's taken him almost two terms, but I think we can now state that the country IS united in it dislike for George Bush.
Good going, Georgie! Now you just need another press conference in front of a banner that says "Mission Accomplished".
HDThoreau2
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/11/06
#11Sorry to burst your liberal bubble, but...
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:09pm
So typical of the elitists to ignore the facts of the issue. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the following information was accessed on the net within two minutes. (LOL)
Q: Is this a liberal-conservative issue? Are there any liberals that side with Bush?
A: An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm
In an essay published in the Boston Globe on August 9, 2006, liberal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that signing statements are “informative and constitutionally unobjectionable.” Tribe writes that what is objectionable is “the president’s failure to face the political music by issuing a veto and subjecting that veto to the possibility of an override in Congress.” An eventual challenge to a president should come not to the statement, but to the fact that a president failed to enforce a law or that his actions resulted in harm to others. In the latter case, Tribe has in mind Presidential directives about how to treat “unlawful combatants.” Tribe’s essay can be found here:
Bill Clinton's Lawyer Supports Signing Statement
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#12Sorry to burst your liberal bubble, but...
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:19pm
Hey Thoreau, since when do you listen to Bill Clinton's Lawyer??
#13Sorry to burst your liberal bubble, but...
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:20pm
HD, you think that Bush is smiling and the Republicans couldn't be happier. You feel Bush is doing a wonderful job. You think things are going great in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we are winning the war. You feel Iraq had a 911 connection and you STILL think they have WMD.You do not think Bush made any mistakes going to war or that he intentionally mislead the public.You believe morale in our military is high and that our troops ALL support Bush and this war. You think Joe Liberman is the voice of reason. You think Scooter Libby is the victim. You ignore all the Bush related scandals as if its just common for Republicans to get beat up like this and that all is fine.You feel Abu Ghraib is overblown and exagerated by the liberal media. Hd, you think Gonzales is innocent of any wrong doing. Of course, I could go on and on. My point is, who here gives a SH!T what you think. You have zero credibilty and you are a joke. Anything you have to say means nothing here. Rove has trained you well. Your his little pawn now do a dance and make us proud, Monkey!You are loyal to your party BUT NOT YOUR COUNTRY! Its people like you I fear not the terrorist. Lately, I have trouble telling you two apart.Drink up butter cup!!
TheatreDiva90016
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
#14HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:31pmThat's the problem with HDTranny and his kind, they NEVER ADMIT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
HDThoreau2
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/11/06
#15HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:33pm
Yes, the problem with you and your kind is NEVER accepting that another view (one that often wins in American politics) exists.
You should be listening to Clinton's lawyer, he agrees with Bush.
Thompson '08
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#16HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:35pmHD, (May I cal you HAL-- there is something computerlike about you) the president's lawyer ALWAYS looks for more authority for the office holder.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#16HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:35pmHD, (May I cal you HAL-- there is something computerlike about you) the president's lawyer ALWAYS looks for more authority for the office holder.
TheatreDiva90016
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
#18HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:37pm
"Yes, the problem with you and your kind is NEVER accepting that another view"
Why should I accept a view that is WRONG and UNIFORMED and the cause of thousands of deaths?
If that's your claim to fame, best of luck to you. You'll need it. Along with the medication you are lacking.
#19HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:40pm
Then only time you will listen to a liberal or anyone connected to Bill Clinton is when its spewing your own crap. I love the HAL nickname! Its PERFECT! AT the end, HAL malfunctioned by the way. He overloaded and just broke down.
By the way, its not the fact that you have different views. Its the fact that you can't even make a convincing argument. You ignore facts and use right leaning news sites and editorials to back up your pretend claims.You cater whats out there to fit your own agenda. In order to sell your bullsh!t on others you MUST first believe the bullsh!t yourself!!! Fact is HD, you clearly don't. If you did you'd do a better job and we'd all just think your crazy. Hd, your not even interesting or convincing enough for us to think your crazy. EVERYONE here know you don't even believe the crap you spew.Hell, I can do crazy. Your just sad and desperate. An attention seeker who has some spare time to kill and a pot to stir. Sad,Sad,Sad!
TheatreDiva90016
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
#20HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:43pm
Here he is at the last Republican mixer.
#21HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:44pm
Here is the distinction:
"Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law." So, for example, if Congress wanted to suspend Habeus Corpus, the signing statement could be used to protect that constitutional right.
In this instance, something very differeng is going on - Bush is trying himself to pursue unconstitutional practices or extend the scope if his powers by use of the signing statements.
It is apples and oranges.
But, when has that ever stopped the Republicans from their "but but but Clinton" routine.
But I know how you all obsess about Clinton.
HDThoreau2
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/11/06
#22HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:55pm
I see that the "moderators" still allow personal attacks from their friends on the board toward all things conservative.
Thompson '08
#23HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 12:59pm
YOUR attack is just as heinous:
You constantly refer to us as with phrases like "you and your kind--lumping together a disparate group of people into one flimsily constructed enemy.
That is the modus operandi of a bigot: to bash a group of individuals with a label.
#24HDTranny STILL holding on to his dreams. Kinda sad, really.
Posted: 6/19/07 at 1:01pm
Personally, I find it bleakly hysterical when even the rabid-right talk show hosts are saying Bush is the worst president in history. You have no idea how many times I've wanted to call one of them up and say, "Told ya so, but would you listen? Noooooooooooooo...."
Coming back to bitecha on the butt.
Videos