bush_stalin_2-749097.jpg

If we allow this, we admit that the President and his Executive are above the law. If we admit that, we may as well admit that America doesn’t exist anymore as a nation of laws, not men. The Bush administration’s flouting the law and following only those it agrees with is unconstitutional.

Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers. [Emphasis added – Ed.]

In a report to Congress, the non partisan Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of the bill provisions that Bush has signed into law but also challenged with signing statements. The GAO found that agencies disobeyed six such laws, while enforcing 10 others as written even though Bush had challenged them.

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers , Democrat of Michigan, said yesterday that the GAO’s findings demonstrated a need for a more “extensive review” of how the government has followed up on hundreds of other laws challenged by Bush.

“The administration is thumbing its nose at the law,” said Conyers, one of the lawmakers who commissioned the GAO study.

I agree.



  1. RickeyD says:

    Not that I’m saying what Bush has done is right, but all that you’re doing is bashing Bush not even knowing what exactly had been portions of each bill had signing statements. I guess it doesn’t matter that all presidents have used signing statements, including Clinton. Just another excuse to bash Bush….

  2. Smartalix says:

    31,

    I’d love to review where Clinton’s agenices used those statements to break the law.

  3. Todd Anderson, III says:

    #11 No, my name is just very common. i wish I had artistic talent. I make a living like most readers of the blog in the IT industry.

    I keep a low profile because I have always known what a long trail people leave in this world, and I think it’s far better simply not to be noticed.

    I disagree with conservative thinking in general because one needs only to listen long enough to any conservative speaker, blogger, ranter, pundit what-have-you to realize that the core conservative philosophy emphasizes self-enrichment, which in the main is fine — I agree with most conservatives that a free market economy and opportunity is clearly the best way to help those in need.

    However, unlike conservatives, I firmly believe that unchecked capitalism lends itself to excessive greed, selfishness, and criminal behavior, and so it needs checks.

    And also I believe that caring for the less fortunate in society needs to be codified into our society; that waiting and hoping for someone to be charitable is not enough.

    I ask you: since conservatives don’t mind innocent people being tortured and imprisoned for years, why do they mind so much if an undeserving person gets a free lunch?

  4. Mr. Fusion says:

    #17, Tom,
    I love the non-partisan government committee headed by John Conyers. He’s a real non-partisan guy.

    John Conyers is a Democrat Congressman from Michigan. He is also Chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. He is partisan.

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is employed by the Congress to investigate government doings. It is non-partisan and independent. The GAO does not give legal advice, it only reports facts.

    Tom, try taking a civics course before writing some political comment.

    #30, YEAH Mike, let’s post something you didn’t.

    The GAO conducted its study by looking at all the provisions in 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2006 that Bush challenged in signing statements. It counted 160 such laws that the president had claimed a right to ignore.

    … two provisions required agencies to get permission from a congressional committee before taking certain actions. In both cases, the agencies notified the committee but acted without their permission — just as Bush’s signing statements instructed them.

    There are a couple of procedures Bush could have taken. He could have vetoed the bills. Or he could challenge them in court. He did neither.

  5. MikeN says:

    The executive branch has a separate authority to uphold the constitution. They don’t have to go to court. It is that branch that enforces the law. Yes he could veto a law, and arguably he should. However, if you have a large bill and the unconstitutional part is one small portion, I can see why signing and ignoring is the way to go.

  6. smartalix says:

    35,

    There is no such thing as a “partial” law. The President is supposed to either veto it or sign it into law that applies to everyone. There is no middle ground.

  7. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #33 – However, unlike conservatives, I firmly believe that unchecked capitalism lends itself to excessive greed, selfishness, and criminal behavior, and so it needs checks.

    And also I believe that caring for the less fortunate in society needs to be codified into our society; that waiting and hoping for someone to be charitable is not enough.

    While I can’t share your X-Files-ish prognostication of a Bush coup, I can wholly agree with that… In full… 100%… Without reservation or hesitation.

    I ask you: since conservatives don’t mind innocent people being tortured and imprisoned for years, why do they mind so much if an undeserving person gets a free lunch?

    Don’t ask me. I’m a liberal. I have no idea what’s wrong with the right wing.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5668 access attempts in the last 7 days.