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. AaronW says:

    A Decider-in-Chief Dubya is above things such as law.

  2. Sounds the Alarm says:

    Time to impeach. But the dems need balls for that!

  3. Unfortunately, you’re right. The Democrats have shown themselves to be spineless, unable to fulfill the overwhelming mandate to stop the war. They’re all looking the other way and hoping not to cause waves so that they can return for another term.

  4. I would like to say that all politicians don’t care about the laws that our country was founded upon, but it’s near enough a majority of them that challenges and change will be extremely difficult.

    I agree with #2 and #3 They’ve [Democrats] already had their chance – said it themselves even! – and were pushed into the corner to cower in fear. I actually allowed myself to feel more hope than usual after the last election and I was let down yet again.

    Jokingly, of course…all those in extreme unhappiness should pick 1 state and move there, where a majority can be established, then vote to secede from the US. (teehee:)

  5. grog says:

    people get the government they deserve

    bet you’ll vote next time, hunh hippy?

  6. Arrius says:

    Bush is so bad all the blame shouldnt be saved just for democrats, the republicans should be bothered by this criminals actions. I finally believe that Bush is both: so stupid as to not know better many times, and that he is malicious in his intents. I blame the republicans more than the democrats because the democrats have always been spineless panderers who lack their own plans.

  7. Todd Anderson, III says:

    It would not terribly surprise me if in the next twelve months George W. Bush executed a full-blown coup d’etat wherein congress would be disbanded outright and martial law imposed on the streets of my home town.

    Anybody interested in a wager? Does the concept frighten you?

  8. bobbo says:

    Well, I don’t get it. Signing statements “should be” meaningless except as a statement as what you intend to do? ie–either BushCo follows the law or he does not. No different than if the signing statement said “I swear I will fully enforce this law as written.”===doesn’t mean a thing.

    In reality, any signing statement revealing an intent to violate the law should be grounds for immediate investigation and impeachment where appropriate.

    The two party system is going to destroy this country.

  9. Dr.Funbags says:

    Hmmmm, if only there was some sort of imminent emergency so that he could get rid of that darn piece o’ paper altogether and just have some good ole boy fun. Wonder if a “graduating” class of Suicide Bombers heading for western targets would constitute an emergency for this Administration.

  10. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #4 – Jokingly, of course…all those in extreme unhappiness should pick 1 state and move there, where a majority can be established, then vote to secede from the US. (teehee:)

    Okay… I choose Texas.

  11. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #7 – It would not terribly surprise me if in the next twelve months George W. Bush executed a full-blown coup d’etat wherein congress would be disbanded outright and martial law imposed on the streets of my home town.

    Anybody interested in a wager? Does the concept frighten you?

    Comment by Todd Anderson, III — 6/20/2007 @ 9:50 am

    I’ll take that wager… Because I know the difference between reality and a Tom Clancy Novel…

    By the way, is your first initial “J” and is your hometown Dayton, Ohio, and are you Joen and Ethan Coen’s favorite storyboard artist J. Todd Anderson from Dayton, Ohio?

  12. chuck says:

    I want to know: have any of the presidential candidates (either republican or democrat) promised to reverse all the extra executive authority that the president has been given by congress, or that he claims he has?

  13. BubbaRay says:

    Okay… I choose Texas. Comment by OhForTheLoveOf

    With Rick Perry as governor, I think we’ve darned near seceded from not only the U.S. but from thinking as well. And I thought Ann Richards was bad.

  14. Dr.Funbags says:

    I know this isnt the spot – but anyone have any idea what Dick Cheney did when he was given the Presidency back when Georgie had to go under the knife?

  15. zoredache says:

    }} Time to impeach. But the dems need balls for that!

    So if they impeach him, and he is removed from office, we get Cheney? {sarcasm} That would be a huge improvement!{/sarcasm}

  16. Gig says:

    You know, we have a process in this country.

    Congress makes the law the Executive branch then carries out those laws as the President interprets them. The signing statements said up front how the Executive branch was going to interpret those laws.

    If the anyone thinks that law is unconstitutional or how it is being carried out is unconstitutional or not in keeping with the law as written we have the Judicial branch.

    Is there one single case where anybody sued overed one of the signing statements? If not either sue or quit bitching.

  17. Tom says:

    #7, I’ll take that bet too.
    As for this article, did anybody actually read it through? I love the non-partisan government committee headed by John Conyers. He’s a real non-partisan guy.
    And congrats to the boys at Dvorak.org for their new portrayal of Bush as Stalin! I guess the Hitler comparisons were getting a bit old. Maybe you guys could get a spot on that non-partisan government committee…
    Seriously, re-read the article before you declare democracy in America dead.

  18. glenn says:

    Dickie Smothers

  19. glenn says:

    #14 Dick Chaney HAS had the presidency for about 6 years.

  20. natefrog says:

    Anyone else think that blaming the Dems for not having a spine is just a subtle smear tactic by the right to discredit the left? Shouldn’t we really be complaining about the lack of votes needed for impeachment due to Republican partisanship?

  21. sdf says:

    #20, hey some Republicans are all about following through on a plan even with no possibility of success

  22. Rick says:

    Signing statements are 1 component of the cabal’s positioning for coup d’etat. Another is NSPD 51 wherein the president puts himself in complete charge of the US government under circumstances he alone chooses. Google it. Start at someplace like here.

  23. Rick says:

    Signing statements are 1 component of the cabal’s positioning for coup d’etat. Another is NSPD 51 wherein the president puts himself in complete charge of the US government under circumstances he alone chooses. Google it. Start at someplace like here. (edited to correct 2nd URI).

  24. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #20 – Yes… But as a Democrat, and as an honest guy, I have to admit that Democrats do have some spine issues sometimes… Democrats can be like the scrawny guy getting sand kicked in his face on the beach. Sure, he’s smarter and you feel sorry him, but look at the bulging biceps on that bully mucleman.

  25. meetsy says:

    re: #16 Can the people of the United States sue …together, as a class action suit? Seems to me as individuals we lack the $$ to hire the kind of lawyers needed to even become heard (things can be kept in the court system just long enough to bankrupt even wealthy individuals). We need to band together to sue, and to lobby. Who can afford to enter either arena…alone?
    Perhaps one dollar each, for every American concerned about how our country is going….could do some serious contending. I’d contribute, but how does that get organized?
    As people, we are alll in debt, struggling to deal with inflation (based on fuel prices) waiting in lines, waiting on HOLD, trying to sort out errors and mistakes and other battles with corporate monopolies. As a nation of individuals we are powerless, because we are using all our energies in fighting small battles (check fees, mystery charges on credit cards, overbilling by AT&T, unfair parking tickets, and on and on). We are all poorer than we were 5 years ago, and much poorer than we were 10 years ago. Health insurance has risen by 200-300 percent. Gas and heating costs have skyrocketed. Electricity has gone up, water, and the costs and TIME of doing anything. I don’t know one person who isn’t suffering from all this, and struggling with limited time, and energy.
    Heck, just trying to get on a plane and going through security checks is wearing us out, not to mention all the new rules, regulations, terrorist laws, local and state laws, fines, citations, penalties…who in the hell has time to sue the government to do what they are SUPPOSED TO DO. We elected a whole new Senate and House….(or a majority) and what are they doing…NOTHING. Wimping out. I don’t care if they are Dems, Repubs or Independents….they aren’t doing what we had hoped….
    So, what exactly are we supposed to do? Sue them? Sure. Okay. Where is the mechanism to join together and sue EN MASS. Surely, I’m not the only one disgusted with the government, the terrorist act, and the bull*hit going on with corporations, the “war”, our budget adjustments, the growing working and non-working poor, and the immigration problems.

  26. bobbo says:

    Are Democrats spineless or something else?

    Fun to say they are spineless or more accurately “non-effective” but whats behind that. Many like to say they are the more intelligent party. Whether that is the cause or effect of spineless ineffectiveness might be interesting to evaluate?

    Lets imagine the truth is worse than the lie? Whats the No 1 duty of a Pol (Dems and Pubs both)?===to get elected. By and large, the Dems are being successful with that. So–they would rather be spineless and ineffective and elected than let the electorate clearly know that the Dems believe the voting majority of Americans are too stupid not to fall victim to the claim of “cut and run.” So, we get what we get.

  27. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Lemme give you something to think about.

    PICTURE THIS: A folksy, self-consciously plainspoken Southern politician rises to power during a period of profound unrest in America. The nation is facing one of the half-dozen or so of its worst existential crises to date, and the people, once sunny, confident, and striving, are now scared, angry, and disillusioned.

    This politician, a ”Professional Common Man,” executes his rise by relentlessly attacking the liberal media, fancy-talking intellectuals, shiftless progressives, pinkos, promiscuity, and welfare hangers-on, all the while clamoring for a return to traditional values, to love of country, to the pie-scented days of old when things made sense and Americans were indisputably American. He speaks almost entirely in ”noble but slippery abstractions”-Liberty, Freedom, Equality-and people love him, even if they can’t fully articulate why without resorting to abstractions themselves.

    Through a combination of factors-his easy bearing chief among them (along with massive cash donations from Big Business; disorganization in the liberal opposition; a stuffy, aloof opponent; and support from religious fanatics who feel they’ve been unfairly marginalized)-he wins the presidential election.

    Once in, he appoints his friends and political advisers to high-level positions, stocks the Supreme Court with ”surprisingly unknown lawyers who called [him] by his first name,” declaws Congress, allows Big Business to dictate policy, consolidates the media, and fills newspapers with ”syndicated gossip from Hollywood.” Carping newspapermen worry that America is moving backward to a time when anti-German politicians renamed sauerkraut ”Liberty Cabbage” and ”hick legislators…set up shop as scientific experts and made the world laugh itself sick by forbidding the teaching of evolution,” but newspaper readers, wary of excessive negativity, pay no mind.

    Given the nature of ”powerful and secret enemies” of America-who are ”planning their last charge” to take away our freedom-an indefinite state of crisis is declared, and that freedom is stowed away for safekeeping. When the threat passes, we can have it back, but in the meantime, citizens are asked to ”bear with” the president.

    Sure, some say these methods are extreme, but the plain folks are tired of wishy-washy leaders, and feel the president’s decisiveness is its own excuse. Besides, as one man says, a fascist dictatorship ”couldn’t happen here in America…we’re a country of freemen!”

    That’s an excerpt from Joe Keohane’s review in the Boston Globe of the timely reissue of Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here.

    I think some of you may find it interesting, the parallels between the book and this whole thing with Dubya…

  28. Smartalix says:

    I find it interesting that our usual Bush apologists haven’t presented a reasonable explanation of how our founders intended that the President was to be above the law, honest.

  29. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I find it interesting that our usual Bush apologists haven’t presented
    >>a reasonable explanation

    Most current supporters of Dumbya aren’t intelligent enough to come up with an explanation. And most of them are not reasonable to begin with. How could any reasonable person support and evil clown like this?

  30. MikeN says:

    From the article:

    Although we found that the agencies did not execute the provisions as enacted, we cannot conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements,” the report said.

    The GAO also did not take a position on whether the Bush administration’s aggressive theories about the president’s powers to act beyond the will of Congress are constitutionally sound.

    The six violations they found were:
    A mandate that Border Patrol move it’s immigration checkpoints around every seven days, two provisions required agencies to get permission from a congressional committee, and instead they only informed Congress, and the other three provisions involved the executive branch giving information to congressional oversight committees, including plans for emergency housing following a disaster; budget documents related to certain military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a proposal to fix a problem related to funding for military medical services. In all three cases, the administration did not obey the laws as written.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5300 access attempts in the last 7 days.