Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The American Bar Association has decided to investigate George Bush, and decide if he has exceeded his constitutional authority in signing bills into law, then adding signing statements which give him the right to break the very laws he signed. Bush has done this on 750 occasions.

There are actually 2 issues here:

1) If Bush doesnt feel the law applies to him, he should veto it, not sign it, and at the same time, give himself the right to break that law. That is clearly unconstitutional.

2) This whole mess can be made moot giving the president the power of the line item veto. Thus, if the president does not like part of the law, he can veto that part. If vetoed, the House and Senate can therefore vote to override that veto. If unable to override, then what Bush vetoes is stricken and does not become part of the law. However, it is upon Congress to decide the law.

Bush has the right to veto a bill, not break the law.

Article is here.

 

[jfuh]

Both are clear violations. YEt is doesn't seem anyone is paying much attention to Bush's signing statments.

 

[Pen]

Both are clear violations. YEt is doesn't seem anyone is paying much attention to Bush's signing statments.

I think that is because they were so little used in previous administrations. Bush's use of the signing statement exceeds the total number of all previous presidents. It took awhile for this to identified and reported. The ABA jumped on it pretty quickly given the snail's pace of action in Washington.

Clinton briefly had the line item veto, but it was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Bush appears to use signing statements as his version of a veto, without the public attention. Quite clever actually, unless the ABA builds a significant challenge to the practice.

 

[jfuh]

I think that is because they were so little used in previous administrations. Bush's use of the signing statement exceeds the total number of all previous presidents. It took awhile for this to identified and reported. The ABA jumped on it pretty quickly given the snail's pace of action in Washington.

That in itself yet still seems of little alarm to the people of the US? The white house just as well should just disband congress if it's going to dictate on it's own what is law and what isn't law. I think this is just rediculous.

Clinton briefly had the line item veto, but it was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Bush appears to use signing statements as his version of a veto, without the public attention. Quite clever actually, unless the ABA builds a significant challenge to the practice.

Exactly, line item veto is illegal! Singing statements are not a free pass for line item vetos.

 

[Pen]

jfuh, haven't you gotten the word that WE ARE AT WAR? /sarcasm

I agree with you that the majority of American's do not engage in politics other than the sound bite of the day. Bush has been on message throughout that he is our protector and that rules must be bent to do the "hard work" of a war president. :roll:

 

[jfuh]

jfuh, haven't you gotten the word that WE ARE AT WAR? /sarcasm

I agree with you that the majority of American's do not engage in politics other than the sound bite of the day. Bush has been on message throughout that he is our protector and that rules must be bent to do the "hard work" of a war president. :roll:

We're still at war? Whatever happened to mission accomplished on that aircraft carrier?
Majority of American's just don't care about anything unless it directly impacts them
Example. Gore ran on getting rid of the national debt, Bush ran on cutting us a $300 check - look who won.

 

[Pen]

We're still at war? Whatever happened to mission accomplished on that aircraft carrier?

I guess the "mission" turned out to be toppling that Saddam statue. You have to admit it was a great photo op. :shock:

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't know much about the ABA, what legal authority do they have? Are they law experts who'se opinions will be acted on? I personally would rather hear about an official investigation that has the legal power to prosecute if they find any wrong doing. I'm sick of waiting for Congress to do it and I'm tired of the back and forth speculating. I say get on with the investigation and make it official. If the ABA is capable of that, then this is great news.

I don't know if the President broke the law or not, but if he did then he should be punished and if he didn't then people need to lay off him about it.