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.
#20, hey some Republicans are all about following through on a plan even with no possibility of success
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.
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).
#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.
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.
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.
Lemme give you something to think about.
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…
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.
>>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?
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.
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….
31,
I’d love to review where Clinton’s agenices used those statements to break the law.
#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?
#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.
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.
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.
#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.