-- Bush Claims He Has Authority To Disobey More THAN 750 LAWS !!!! --

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='263133' date='May 3 2006, 11:45 PM']the "truthfullness" lies in the past statutes set by the previous administration and the intended balance of powers in which the seperate branches were created

now "truthiness," thats a completely seperate subject[/quote]
I know, it depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='CP1' post='262641' date='May 3 2006, 12:11 PM']Thanks Lewis![/quote]

If the random reply is the "in" thing to do, then who better than Lewis Carroll, the King of Random Nonsense!?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://www.insider-magazine.com/KingBush.gif[/img]


[/center]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Here is your source .... a GOP member himself [/b] [/color]



[size=3][u][quote]Hearing vowed on Bush's powers
Senator questions bypassing of laws
By Charlie Savage, Boston Globe Staff
May 3, 2006[/u][/size]


The [b]chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee[/b], [b]accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority[/b], said yesterday he will [b]hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.[/b]

[b]''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] , said in an interview. [b]''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//26.gif[/img]

Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.

The senator emphasized that his goal is ''to bring some light on the subject." Legal scholars say that, when confronted by a president encroaching on their power, Congress's options are limited. Lawmakers can call for hearings or cut the funds of a targeted program to apply political pressure, or take the more politically charged steps of censure or impeachment.

Specter's announcement followed a report in the Sunday Globe that Bush has quietly challenged provisions in about 1 in 10 of the bills that he has signed, asserting the authority to ignore more than 750 statutes.

[b]Over the past five years, Bush has stated that he can defy any statute that conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.[/b] In many instances, Bush cited his role as head of the executive branch or as commander in chief to justify the exemption.

The statutes that Bush has asserted the right to override include numerous rules and regulations for the military, job protections for whistle-blowers who tell Congress about possible government wrongdoing, affirmative action requirements, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Bush made the claims in ''signing statements," official do***ents in which a president lays out his interpretation of a bill for the executive branch, creating guidelines to follow when it implements the law. The statements are filed without fanfare in the federal record, often following ceremonies in which the president made no mention of the objections he was about to raise in the bill, even as he signed it into law.

Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said via e-mail that if Specter calls a hearing, ''by all means we will ensure he has the information he needs." She pointed out that other presidents dating to the 19th century have ''on occasion" issued statements that raise constitutional concerns about provisions in new laws.

[b]But while previous presidents did occasionally challenge provisions in laws while signing them, legal scholars say, the frequency and breadth of Bush's use of that power are unprecedented.[/b]

Bush is also the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, an act that gives public notice that he is rejecting a law and can be overridden by Congress. Instead, Bush has used signing statements to declare that he can bypass numerous provisions in new laws.

[b]The statements attracted little attention in Congress or the media until recently, when Bush used them to reserve a right to bypass a new torture ban and new oversight provisions in the Patriot Act.[/b]

[b]''The problem is that you have a statute, which Congress has passed, and then the signing statements negate that statute," Specter said.[/b] [b]''And there are more and more of them coming. If the president doesn't like something, he puts a signing statement on it."[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img]

[b]Specter added: ''He put a signing statement on the Patriot Act. He put a signing statement on the torture issue. It's a very blatant encroachment on [Congress's constitutional] powers. If he doesn't like the bill, let him veto it."[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img]

It was during a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the FBI that Specter yesterday announced his intent to hold a hearing on Bush's legal authority. Another committee member, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, also questioned Bush's assertions that he has the authority to give himself an exemption from certain laws.

[b]''Unfortunately, the president's signing statement on the Patriot Act is hardly the first time that he has shown a disrespect for the rule of law," Feingold said.[/b] ''The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the president has used signing statements to reserve the right to break the law more than 750 times."

Feingold is an outspoken critic of Bush's assertion that his wartime powers give him the authority to set aside laws. The senator has proposed censuring Bush over his domestic spying program, in which the president secretly authorized the military to wiretap Americans' phones without a warrant, bypassing a 1978 surveillance law.

At the hearing yesterday, Feingold pressed FBI director Robert Mueller to give assurances that the bureau would comply with provisions in the Patriot Act and to tell Congress how agents are using the law to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Mueller said he saw no reason that the bureau couldn't share that information with Congress. But he also said that he was bound to obey the administration, and declined to promise that he would ''go out there and fight" on behalf of Congress if Bush decided to override the Patriot Act's oversight provision and ordered the FBI not to brief Congress.

Feingold also said Bush's legal claims have cast a cloud over a host of rules and restrictions that Congress has passed, using its constitutional authority to regulate the executive branch of government.

[b]''How can we know whether the government will comply with the new laws that we passed?" Feingold said.[/b] ''I'm not placing the blame on you, obviously, or your agents who work to protect this country every day, but how can we have any assurance that you or your agents have not received a secret directive from above requiring you to violate laws that we all think apply today?"

Mueller replied: ''I can assure with you with regard to the FBI that our actions would be taken according to appropriate legal authorities."

[b]Specter said that challenging Bush's contention that he can ignore laws written by Congress should be a matter of institutional pride for lawmakers.[/b] He also connected Bush's defiance of laws to several Supreme Court decisions in which the justices ruled that Congress had not done enough research to justify a law.

[b]''We're undergoing a tsunami here with the flood coming from the executive branch on one side and the judicial branch on the other," Specter said.[/b] ''There may as well soon not be a Congress. . . . And I think that most members don't understand what's happening."[/quote]


[url="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/03/hearing_vowed_on_bushs_powers/"]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...n_bushs_powers/[/url]

[Boomer07]

pwnt.

[Guest bengalrick]

arlan specter is a liberal/independant republican, in an election year, in a blue state...

btw, this still has no source to the statement: [i]bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years[/i]

his source seems to be your source... i'm still waiting
[i]
Specter's announcement followed a report in the Sunday Globe that Bush has quietly challenged provisions in about 1 in 10 of the bills that he has signed, asserting the authority to ignore more than 750 statutes.[/i]

and to continue... [i]
Over the past five years, Bush has stated that he can defy any statute that conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. In many instances, Bush cited his role as head of the executive branch or as commander in chief to justify the exemption.[/i]

usually, an article would follow w/ a: "says retired cia director X"... this just says "he did it, silently..." what the fuck does that mean, anyways? in other words, they are accusing him of doing it, and he won't admit it? seriously, what do they mean by that?

[i] Specter added: ''He put a signing statement on the Patriot Act. He put a signing statement on the torture issue. It's a very blatant encroachment on [Congress's constitutional] powers. If he doesn't like the bill, let him veto it."[/i]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//20.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//20.gif[/img]

"we can't overrule the president and show we don't stand w/ him, b/c he won't even veto a bill"

well, he is about to get his way, [url="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/05/content_4510297.htm"]more than likely[/url]... hopefully the house will cut the fat off the bill, b/c the extra entitlements are getting ridiculous... [i]The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a 91.9-billion-dollar package, about 17 billion dollars less than the Senate's version.[/i]

[Boomer07]

Ugh.

[quote]Bruce Fein, a [b]deputy attorney general in the [u]Reagan administration[/u][/b], said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

[b]''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," [/b] Fein said. [b]''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."[/b][/quote]

Obviosly a lefty pinko democrat with an agenda!!!!

Dude, get you head out of the sand. I've seen that you're capable of it. The Bush administration is not only betraying America, but your republican party.

WAKE.

UP.

[Guest bengalrick]

another guys' opinion... i will listen to opinions, but you can't hide from facts... i don't see any facts, any person saying "i heard bush say this", just people giving their opinions... its not about pulling my head out of the sand... but where is teh evidence? i mean, come on boomer, and "unlimited executive power" ??? not even close...

i'm not saying there is nothing to the story, but you have to sell me better than just stating something, w/ no facts for me to pick through at all... you know the saying about opinions, don't you

[Boomer07]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='263623' date='May 4 2006, 08:14 PM']another guys' opinion... i will listen to opinions, but you can't hide from facts... i don't see any facts, any person saying "i heard bush say this", just people giving their opinions... its not about pulling my head out of the sand... but where is teh evidence? i mean, come on boomer, and "unlimited executive power" ??? not even close...

i'm not saying there is nothing to the story, but you have to sell me better than just stating something, w/ no facts for me to pick through at all... you know the saying about opinions, don't you [/quote]


Sigh.

Arguing shit like this is like banging your head against a wall.

Okay, fair enough, let's just see how the hearings turn out in June.

That'll be when the "facts" are presented. At least from those that don't plead the 5th... or outright lie.

Just keep an open mind. I know you can do it.

[Homer_Rice]

Children are often told the story about Nero and how he fiddled while Rome burned. What most people are not told is how the general populace behaved, just prior to, and while the city went up in flames.

[Boomer07]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='263698' date='May 4 2006, 09:23 PM']Children are often told the story about Nero and how he fiddled while Rome burned. What most people are not told is how the general populace behaved, just prior to, and while the city went up in flames.[/quote]

Homer's posts, in genereral, make me feel dumb... but, I usually learn something, and get a little bit smarter.

Keep it up!

[|Bunghole|]

So where's the outcry besides from writers from the Boston Globe again? Surely if Bush was shitting all over the constitution like you all claim that someone outside of New England would have followed up on the story....
I AM NOT A BUSH DEFENDER! I think he's a marginal president at best that used to be surrounded by people that would help define what an ambiguous "war on terror" really was. Now I'm not so sure, but I am SO SICK of people blaming the Oval Office for their bad personal choices in life, or people that act like our checks and balances system no longer exists.....because it DOES!
Get a grip.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='263722' date='May 4 2006, 10:54 PM']So where's the outcry besides from writers from the Boston Globe again? Surely if Bush was shitting all over the constitution like you all claim that someone outside of New England would have followed up on the story....
I AM NOT A BUSH DEFENDER! I think he's a marginal president at best that used to be surrounded by people that would help define what an ambiguous "war on terror" really was. Now I'm not so sure, but I am SO SICK of people blaming the Oval Office for their bad personal choices in life, or people that act like our checks and balances system no longer exists.....because it DOES!
Get a grip.[/quote]

A DIALOGUE AMONG OSTRICHES

Ostrich #1: "How come you got your head in the sand?"

Ostrich #2: "I'm covering my butt."

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='263744' date='May 4 2006, 09:12 PM']A DIALOGUE AMONG OSTRICHES

Ostrich #1: "How come you got your head in the sand?"

Ostrich #2: "I'm covering my butt."[/quote]
You have just defined politics.

[Guest bengalrick]

a statement was claimed to be made... what is the source?? that is my only point... where did the statement "bush claims he has authority to disobey more than 750 laws" come from? is he saying that bush claimed it to him (the writer)? do you get my point yet?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]BR ..... Bush didn't make the Statement "I claim to have the authority to disobey 750 laws" ...... the title comes from the fact that he has used signing statements to ruin the intent of 750 laws and repeatedly stated that as President the laws don't apply to him .....


the signing statements are a known fact [/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='263891' date='May 5 2006, 09:17 AM'][b]BR ..... Bush didn't make the Statement "I claim to have the authority to disobey 750 laws" ...... the title comes from the fact that he has used signing statements to ruin the intent of 750 laws and repeatedly stated that as President the laws don't apply to him .....
the signing statements are a known fact [/b][/quote]

so its a matter of these guys' opinions?

i am glad there will be hearings, as well as you guys... i just didn't understand the statement/title of this story... thanks for explaining...

[Boomer07]

Here's an editorial on the subject from the New York Times, FWIW (sorry, no link. I found it on another board and I don't subscribe to the NYT).

Yeah, yeah. The NYT is a lefty publication... and this is an editorial... take it for what it's worth.

Just wanted to add it to the mix for discussion.

Guy makes some interesting points though, I think.

[quote]Veto? Who Needs a Veto?
The New York Times | Editorial
Friday 05 May 2006
One of the abiding curiosities of the Bush administration is that after more than five years in office, the president has yet to issue a veto. No one since Thomas Jefferson has stayed in the White House this long without rejecting a single act of Congress. Some people attribute this to the Republicans' control of the House and the Senate, and others to Mr. Bush's reluctance to expend political capital on anything but tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq. Now, thanks to a recent article in The Boston Globe, we have a better answer.
President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes. Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.
In this area, as in so many others, Mr. Bush has decided not to take the open, forthright constitutional path. He signed some of the laws in question with great fanfare, then quietly registered his intention to ignore them. He placed his imperial vision of the presidency over the will of America's elected lawmakers. And as usual, the Republican majority in Congress simply looked the other way.
Many of the signing statements reject efforts to curb Mr. Bush's out-of-control sense of his powers in combating terrorism. In March, after frequent pious declarations of his commitment to protecting civil liberties, Mr. Bush issued a signing statement that said he would not obey a new law requiring the Justice Department to report on how the F.B.I. is using the Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers if he decided that such reporting could impair national security or executive branch operations.
In another case, the president said he would not instruct the military to follow a law barring it from storing illegally obtained intelligence about Americans. Now we know, of course, that Mr. Bush had already authorized the National Security Agency, which is run by the Pentagon, to violate the law by eavesdropping on Americans' conversations and reading Americans' e-mail without getting warrants.
We know from this sort of bitter experience that the president is not simply expressing philosophical reservations about how a particular law may affect the war on terror. The signing statements are not even all about national security. Mr. Bush is not willing to enforce a law protecting employees of nuclear-related agencies if they report misdeeds to Congress. In another case, he said he would not turn over scientific information "uncensored and without delay" when Congress needed it. (Remember the altered environmental reports?)
Mr. Bush also demurred from following a law forbidding the Defense Department to censor the legal advice of military lawyers. (Remember the ones who objected to the torture-is-legal policy?) Instead, his signing statement said military lawyers are bound to agree with political appointees at the Justice Department and the Pentagon.
The founding fathers never conceived of anything like a signing statement. The idea was cooked up by Edwin Meese III, when he was the attorney general for Ronald Reagan, to expand presidential powers. He was helped by a young lawyer who was a true believer in the unitary presidency, a euphemism for an autocratic executive branch that ignores Congress and the courts. Unhappily, that lawyer, Samuel Alito Jr., is now on the Supreme Court.
Since the Reagan era, other presidents have issued signing statements to explain how they interpreted a law for the purpose of enforcing it, or to register narrow constitutional concerns. But none have done it as profligately as Mr. Bush. (His father issued about 232 in four years, and Bill Clinton 140 in eight years.) And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.
Like many of Mr. Bush's other imperial excesses, this one serves no legitimate purpose. Congress is run by a solid and iron-fisted Republican majority. And there is actually a system for the president to object to a law: he vetoes it, and Congress then has a chance to override the veto with a two-thirds majority.
That process was good enough for 42 other presidents. But it has the disadvantage of leaving the chief executive bound by his oath of office to abide by the result. This president seems determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution.[/quote]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060505/schorr.gif[/img]


[/center]

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2141085/nav/tap2/"]Kinsley's balanced take from Slate[/url]