signing statements (where there has not been one single instance of the president invoking)
Just as an aside, you guys really don't get why people are up in arms about signing statements, do you?
It's not that he's using a tool that is legally available to him, it's the way and the amount of times that he uses it. The constitution says that the president can sign a law or veto it. Those are the choices. The problem is that Bush uses the signing statements to pass a law, but strike parts that he finds inconvenient. This creates a de-facto line item veto, which as you may recall, the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional. Additionally, Bush has used this power more than every other president combined. From Charlie Savages Pulitzer prize winning essay on the signing statements:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
As you said (quite admirably, you're one of the first conservatives I've seen that has called Bush administration's interpretation of the constitution loopy), Bush has gotten terrible advice about constitutional interpretations. These same people are telling him that he has the right to ignore any law he finds inconvenient. I don't want any president, R or D, to have that power.
And yes, that hearing was painful to watch.Comment Posted By Ian On 27.06.2008 @ 23:40
Oh, and as for manufacturing scandal, haircutgate? Travelgate? Whitewatergate?Comment Posted By Ian On 14.03.2007 @ 10:03
From Fox News:
When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.
It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.Comment Posted By Ian On 14.03.2007 @ 09:43
Global warming.Gore is an idiot!!!!!!!!!!Who created the ice age?Gore is running around blaming bush and americans for the destruction of this earth.The same 60's crap and berkely liberal soft coward like blame game.I have lived in this country for 26 years and it is the greatest country on earth.Polls are for idiots!We are fine and all we have to do is finish what we start and support Bush and throw Kennedys,durbins,pelosis and all democrats out until they stop whining and get some character.Comment Posted By Ian On 28.05.2006 @ 11:04
Pages (1) :