Does Dick Cheney believe in the Constitution?

[JMak]

Correct. Bush does not have the authority to make many of them either. His job is to ENFORCE the laws Congress passes.

First, Bush does have the authority to issue signing statements.

Second, the signing statements reflect the intent of the Executive to enforce enacted legislation not change laws.

Third, his duty to enforce laws also comes with a duty to defend the Constitution. Hence, a necessary part of that duty is to determine whether legislation enacted by the Congress is constitutional.

For example, many appropriations bills enacted by Congress and sent to the President include a legislative veto provision which would permit a single chamber of Congress or even a single committee in Congress to nullify executive branch action - notwithstanding the fact that the Courts shot down such provisions more than 20 years ago. Rather than veto the entire spending bill the President issues a signing statement citing the constitutional objection and then sings the bill.

Another example, despite being serially abused, the phrase Unitary Executive simply means that the Executive, as conferred in Article II of the Constitution, is responsible for supervising and controlling the Executive Branch of the government. When congressional legislative directs Executive officials to submit information to Congress or consult with Congress or make legislative recommendations to Congress, the President will frequently object on the basis that such direction interferes with his constitutional authority to supervise and direct employees in the Executive Branch. I.e., a separation of powers argument.

I see nothing wrong with signing statements provided they present a basis for a constitutional objection. Then Congress can take remedial action.

What's the problem?

Oh, that's right, it's Bush. Anyone other than Bush and signing statements are no big deal whatsoever.

 

[Jessica]

That you know of.

I think much was done without us knowing it that was quite competently conceived and executed but not well publicized.

Yeah the "North American Union" bill he signed wasn't well publicized. Just the way he wants it to be.

 

[JMak]

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what's the problem with this so-called "restoration" of Executive authority?

Do you not agree that the War Powers Act, FISA, Presidential Records Act, etc., are all infringements upon Executive Authority? Do they not reduce Executive Authority by legislative act?

Of course they do.

I guess some of you hate separation powers except when it benefits you. :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

The only thing wrong with Cheney is his title, it should have been "Mr. President" instead of "Mr. Vice President". We would all be much better off. He tells it like it is and that in a politician, is rare.

Oh good lord.

 

[bhkad]

So what's the problem with this so-called "restoration" of Executive authority?

Do you not agree that the War Powers Act, FISA, Presidential Records Act, etc., are all infringements upon Executive Authority? Do they not reduce Executive Authority by legislative act?

Of course they do.

I guess some of you hate separation powers except when it benefits you. :roll:

We're on the same side, JMak.

 

[bhkad]

Yeah the "North American Union" bill he signed wasn't well publicized. Just the way he wants it to be.

Thanks for giving us an example of what I am talking about. Now, just imagine that there are many things done to benefit us that are also under publicized or not publicized at all.

 

[ADK_Forever]

First, Bush does have the authority to issue signing statements.

Granted.

Second, the signing statements reflect the intent of the Executive to enforce enacted legislation not change laws.

“Intent… to Enforce”? It’s his Constitutional "duty" to “enforce” ALL laws passed by Congress!

Third, his duty to enforce laws also comes with a duty to defend the Constitution. Hence, a necessary part of that duty is to determine whether legislation enacted by the Congress is constitutional.

“Defend the Constitution”? That’s a good one. :lol: I realize that you would like King George to be able to write his own laws but, that’s just not how it works. It will be interesting to see what your comments to “Obama’s” signing statements are.

The determination if a law is “constitutional” lies with Congress, NOT the president or Executive Branch. There is a difference between “execute” and “legislate”. You might want to look them up.

For example, many appropriations bills enacted by Congress and sent to the President include a legislative veto provision which would permit a single chamber of Congress or even a single committee in Congress to nullify executive branch action - notwithstanding the fact that the Courts shot down such provisions more than 20 years ago. Rather than veto the entire spending bill the President issues a signing statement citing the constitutional objection and then sings the bill.

This is the same as a “line item veto” which, SCOTUS has deemed unconstitutional! And do you know why? Because, only Congress “makes” the laws. By using a line item veto (or Signing Statements as Bush-Cheney have) the president would be changing a law that Congress approved. He does not have that power. What Bush has been doing with many of his signing statements is the same thing. Congress should have stepped in to stop this but, for 6 years he had his kool-aid drinking Repubs in power who didn’t care about the law. They only cared that he signed their pork bills. (i.e. Dennis Hastert’s illegal land grab to set him up for retirement! The Washington Monthly ) Then the Dems lacked the balls to do what was right.

I see nothing wrong with signing statements provided they present a basis for a constitutional objection. Then Congress can take remedial action.

They had no constitutional basis the way Bush abused them and you still have no objections to them.

What's the problem?

Bush has confused the office of the President with the thrown of the Queen! :roll:

Here’s a few links for your edumacation.

Bush's hedge on bill renews debate over 'signing statements' - Los Angeles Times

Just two hours before President Bush began his State of the Union address earlier this week, his administration quietly issued a statement indicating that four provisions in a defense bill might not be “consistent with the constitutional authority of the president.”

The president’s action revived a controversy over his use of so-called signing statements to express his reservations about a bill even as he signs it into law.

“Congress has a right to expect that the administration will faithfully implement all of the provisions of the [act], not just the ones he happens to agree with,” Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said Thursday on the Senate floor.

Bush is not the first president to issue signing statements, but controversy over them erupted two years ago when Democrats and some Republicans argued that he appeared to be using them to lay a paper trail to expand the powers of the presidency.

“There’s nothing wrong with signing statements,” said Martin Lederman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. “The problem is that signing statements indicate that the president does not feel bound to enforce statutes.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_(United_States)

George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements — for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[11]
Wikinews has related news: Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.[8][12] In the words of a New York Times commentary:
And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.[13]

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, appointed by ABA President Michael S. Greco, issued a widely publicized report condemning some uses of signing statements. The task force report and recommendations were unanimously approved by ABA delegates at their August 2006 meeting.[1]

The bipartisan and independent blue ribbon panel was chaired by Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of Florida. He is past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section, chair of the ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance and the ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants; and president-elect of the American Judicature Society.

The report stated in part:
Among those unanimous recommendations, the Task Force voted to:
• oppose, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, a President's issuance of signing statements to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;
• urge the President, if he believes that any provision of a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, to communicate such concerns to Congress prior to passage;
• urge the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose, and significance of bills, and to use his veto power if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional;
• urge Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements, and to report to Congress the reasons and legal basis for any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and to make all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database.

There’s more but, you can read them in front of a nice warm fire.

Here’s a bipartisan condemnation of Bush-Cheney's abuse of signing statements:
Bush's Challenges of Laws He Signed Is Criticized

A bipartisan group of senators and scholars denounced President Bush yesterday for using scores of "signing statements" to reserve the right to ignore or reinterpret provisions of measures that he has signed into law.

Bush's statements have challenged, for instance, a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the administration of the USA Patriot Act and even a legislative demand for suggestions on the digital mapping of coastal resources.

Jmak, I know none this won’t change "your" mind but, it may help to expose to others exactly what Bush and Cheney have been up to with this obvious and flagrant misuse of the law.

 

[JMak]

Granted.

Then why pretend that Bush doesn't have the authority to issue some, many, or otherwise?

“Intent… to Enforce”? It’s his Constitutional "duty" to “enforce” ALL laws passed by Congress!

As well as a duty to protect and defend the Constitution, no?

“Defend the Constitution”? That’s a good one. :lol:

The President takes no oath?

I realize that you would like King George to be able to write his own laws but, that’s just not how it works. It will be interesting to see what your comments to “Obama’s” signing statements are.

First, you must be deranged. King George? Last I checked, Kings don't tolerate legislative and judicial checks on their power. I don't think a King would have sought congressional approval for not one war but two. Nor sought congressional approval to conduct military tribunals. Nor accepted juducial decisions regarding combtanta status review tribunals. Nor accepted the legislative's authority to confirm his appointees.

Yeah, some King!!! :roll:

Second, I'll be critical of Obama's signing statements when warranted. I don't get upset when Bush's signing statements are criticized. I get upset when ignorant fools question his authority to issue them and argue that the issuance of them reflect a monarchial attitude. That's bunk.

The determination if a law is “constitutional” lies with Congress, NOT the president or Executive Branch. There is a difference between “execute” and “legislate”. You might want to look them up.

You may want to read the Constitution. There is no constitutional grant of authority to any branch to be the final expositor on the meaning or interpretation of the Constitution. Congress has no constitutional grant of authority to "determine" the constitutionality of anything. The Judicial Branch has no such authority, either.

Perhaps you can cite the constitutional passages that you believe empowers Congress to act as such a final arbiter?

While you're thinking about, please also think about how such an enumerated authority, should it exist, would affect the co-equal status of the three branches of government. :roll:

This is the same as a “line item veto” which, SCOTUS has deemed unconstitutional! And do you know why? Because, only Congress “makes” the laws. By using a line item veto (or Signing Statements as Bush-Cheney have) the president would be changing a law that Congress approved.

Take a deep breath.

Yes, SCOTUS has ruled legislative veto provisions unconstitutional because the exercise of such vetoes would upset the co-equal nature of the branches of government.

Two, signing statements are nothing like vetoes. That's why they are not used to veto anything. They generally are statements for the record reflecting the Executive's perception of the legislative history (recorded in the bill itself) or they raise constitutional objections/concerns.

Which ones do you think vetoed any law?

He does not have that power.

Says you? LMAO!!

What Bush has been doing with many of his signing statements is the same thing.

Which ones, specifically?

Congress should have stepped in to stop this but, for 6 years he had his kool-aid drinking Repubs in power who didn’t care about the law.

Congress has no authority to step in to stop the issuance of signing statements. They can only enact new legislation.

They had no constitutional basis the way Bush abused them and you still have no objections to them.

Well, you kinda have to establish that Bush abused them and that he lacked the authority to issue them.

You're 0 for 2.

Try again.

Bush has confused the office of the President with the thrown of the Queen! :roll:

You mean "throne."

Again, last I checked, Bush has not disbanded the other two branches of government.

Here’s a few links for your edumacation.

Bush's hedge on bill renews debate over 'signing statements' - Los Angeles Times


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_(United_States)

I don't disagree that there is a debate. But that debate is far, far above your ability to participate.

Here’s a bipartisan condemnation of Bush-Cheney's abuse of signing statements:
Bush's Challenges of Laws He Signed Is Criticized

I seriously doubt you read any of the criticisms of that ABA report or any other counter-argument. You just don't understand what this debate is about. That's why you ignorantly shift between arguing that he has the authority to issue them to arguing that he doesn't rather than intelligently discussing the nature of the signing statements and what that may reveal about this President's view of Executive authority. The debate is about Executive authority, not the legality of the signing statements.

Jmak, I know none this won’t change "your" mind but, it may help to expose to others exactly what Bush and Cheney have been up to with this obvious and flagrant misuse of the law.

What "law" is being misused? You said Bush has no legal basis to issue these signing statements, well, some of them, at least. Hence, if there is no legal basis then what "law" is bieng abused?

You don't even know what you're saying.

 

[ADK_Forever]

I seriously doubt you read any of the criticisms of that ABA report or any other counter-argument. You just don't understand what this debate is about. That's why you ignorantly shift between arguing that he has the authority to issue them to arguing that he doesn't rather than intelligently discussing the nature of the signing statements and what that may reveal about this President's view of Executive authority. The debate is about Executive authority, not the legality of the signing statements.

Why? Because you don't read what you yourself or others post so, you think others act like you? How can you intelligently argue against someone else's point if you don't read their submissions? I understand if you can't view videos but, what's your excuse for not reading submitted points? Oh, that's right. You just argue against the other side, no matter what they have to say, right? :roll:

It's obvious you know what I'm talking about, and that you probably know I'm right, by the way you nit pick little details in a vain attempt at derailing my argument. You just can't admit I'm right and you're wrong, right? Oh well, I won't play your silly game and respond to every ignorant point.

I said the president has the authority to do signing statements and I said Bush was abusing his power with them. You obviously can't comprehend the subtle difference there. I'm sorry but, I can't explain it any simpler for you.

The way Bush has been using signing statements has exactly the same effect as a line item veto. SCOTUS may have to weigh in on this someday soon. So, print this out and tack it to your cork board. The debate on the "legality" of what Bush has been doing has yet to commence. But, if Obama has any kahuna's... it will.

King George is in for a very rude reality check after he leaves town. And from the looks of it, you are too. :mrgreen:

 

[Gill]

“Intent… to Enforce”? It’s his Constitutional "duty" to “enforce” ALL laws passed by Congress!

A District Attorney also has a duty to enforce all laws, but they don't do they? DA's decide which crimes to prosecute and which ones to ignore.

Bush has NOT issued 750 signing statements since he's been in office. That's a fallacy printed by the Boston Globe which they retracted a few days later.

By the way, Clinton issued MANY more signing statements than Bush has. Your problem with Bush's is 1) You don't like what laws he's attached signing statements to, and 2) You have a malignant case of BDS.

The very first signing statement was issued by Monroe in 1822, so they have a long history among Presidents.

 

[JMak]

Why? Because you don't read what you yourself or others post so, you think others act like you? How can you intelligently argue against someone else's point if you don't read their submissions? I understand if you can't view videos but, what's your excuse for not reading submitted points? Oh, that's right. You just argue against the other side, no matter what they have to say, right? :roll:

I did read them, fool. That I disagree with you about what they might reflect about Cheney doesn't mean that I didn't read them.

This is a pathetic tactic that you use calling anyone who doesn't see things the way you do a neo-con or arguing that they don't read, etc.

Any reasonable reader will recognize that I'm being quite fair in this while you go off the deep end about Cheney's evilness.

It's obvious you know what I'm talking about, and that you probably know I'm right, by the way you nit pick little details in a vain attempt at derailing my argument. You just can't admit I'm right and you're wrong, right? Oh well, I won't play your silly game and respond to every ignorant point.

Right, because there's no legitimate counter-argument to your arguments, right? You're a true lefty, aren't ya? Constantly imputing motives to those you disagree with rather than addressing substance.

I said the president has the authority to do signing statements and I said Bush was abusing his power with them.

If he has the power to issue them then how can he abuse that power? By issuing statements you disagree with? That's not presidential abuse, that's merely your disagreement.

What abuse has Bush committed? Besides issuing statements that someone else says are improper?

You obviously can't comprehend the subtle difference there. I'm sorry but, I can't explain it any simpler for you.

There si no subtle difference and you're not presenting it as such. You said such abuse was obvious. That's not very subtle.

The way Bush has been using signing statements has exactly the same effect as a line item veto.

Okay. Present a single example of this...

SCOTUS may have to weigh in on this someday soon.

The courts have many, many, many times. That you don't know demonstrates just how in over your head you are here.

King George is in for a very rude reality check after he leaves town. And from the looks of it, you are too. :mrgreen:

Clown, Bush acts asa King in no way. I see you completely ducked my examples of this King freely abdicating his authority... :roll:

 

[ADK_Forever]

A District Attorney also has a duty to enforce all laws, but they don't do they? DA's decide which crimes to prosecute and which ones to ignore.

Their "DUTY" is to enforce the law! A case could be made for impeachment if laws were not enforced.

Bush has NOT issued 750 signing statements since he's been in office. That's a fallacy printed by the Boston Globe which they retracted a few days later.

I never said he did.

By the way, Clinton issued MANY more signing statements than Bush has. Your problem with Bush's is 1) You don't like what laws he's attached signing statements to, and 2) You have a malignant case of BDS.

No, my problem is with people who jump the gun assuming they know where I, or anyone from the other side, is coming from because they don't actually read what I've written or a link I've posted. You know, like those people who can't give an opposing player credit for making a good play.

I have other "problems" but, because of those great drugs I can't remember what they are. :lol:

From: Presidential Signing Statements

Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?
A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

Q: What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?

A: In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

Another problem I have is with that poor excuse we are stuck with called our President! He should have been impeached a lonnnng time ago.

The very first signing statement was issued by Monroe in 1822, so they have a long history among Presidents.

Look at that, something we can agree on. It has nothing to do with any of this conversation but, we can agree on it.


JMak, I saw you rant. Fair? Intentionally misrepresenting facts makes you "fair"? :roll: Constantly arguing against proven facts with misquotes from bad sources makes you "fair"? :2razz:

You said: "If he has the power to issue them then how can he abuse that power?". Man, this one is a keeper! Gotta be one of the most shallow points anyone has ever put up here. :lol: We should have a pool with this one to see who can come up with the most, or the most interesting, example of why this is dumb, dumb, dumb. :lol:

 

[Gill]

Their "DUTY" is to enforce the law! A case could be made for impeachment if laws were not enforced.

That would require the impeachment of every prosecuting attorney in the country along with every president, dead or alive for the past 175 years.

Should a policeman be fired for writing you a warning for speeding, rather than issuing a ticket.

I never said he did.

You posted a quote from a source that said he did. Don't you agree with your own sources??

Another problem I have is with that poor excuse we are stuck with called our President! He should have been impeached a lonnnng time ago.

All you've been waiting for is an impeachable offense.

 

[JMak]

Their "DUTY" is to enforce the law! A case could be made for impeachment if laws were not enforced.

You have no idea what the Executive's duties are. That you insist his only duty is to enforce laws necessariyl means you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, my problem is with people who jump the gun assuming they know where I, or anyone from the other side, is coming from because they don't actually read what I've written or a link I've posted. You know, like those people who can't give an opposing player credit for making a good play.

Who is doing this?

I

JMak, I saw you rant. Fair? Intentionally misrepresenting facts makes you "fair"? :roll: Constantly arguing against proven facts with misquotes from bad sources makes you "fair"? :2razz:

Wow!

You have not demonstrated that I have misrepresented anything? You have not demonstrated that I have utilized so-called "misquotes."

Until you do you cannot argue that I have.

You said: "If he has the power to issue them then how can he abuse that power?". Man, this one is a keeper! Gotta be one of the most shallow points anyone has ever put up here. :lol: We should have a pool with this one to see who can come up with the most, or the most interesting, example of why this is dumb, dumb, dumb. :lol:

Care to answer the question?

How does issuing signing statements constitute an abuse of the power to issue them? It's simply exercising an authority you concede belongs to the Executive.

The issuance ain't the problem.

Look, again, you're way over your head. Reasonable people that disagree about this are not disagreeing about the issuance. They are arguing about the substance of the statements and what the President is suggesting about the limits of executive power.

 

[JMak]

has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

And...what? You bolded this...why? If the President believes that a legislative provision is unconstitutional, why do yuo believe that he has a duty to enforce it? Does the President not take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?

Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

What's the problem with this?

Do you simply disagree with the constitutional concept of separation of powers?

Do you simply disagree with the constitutional concept of co-equal branches?

Or is it that you agree with both concepts but you don't when you disagree with a Republican President?

 

[Jessica]

Thanks for giving us an example of what I am talking about. Now, just imagine that there are many things done to benefit us that are also under publicized or not publicized at all.

Oh, you don't know what the North American Union is and what it's about. You should research it, that way you can join the conversation intelligently. You'll see how it will not benefit us. Go do it now. I'll wait.

 

[Gill]

Oh, you don't know what the North American Union is and what it's about. You should research it, that way you can join the conversation intelligently. You'll see how it will not benefit us. Go do it now. I'll wait.

tsk, tsk... another conspiracy theory.

 

[Jessica]

tsk, tsk... another conspiracy theory.

Tsk, tsk... another blind ignorant fellow who fails to read books and disregards anything that would bring him knowledge.

 

[Gill]

Tsk, tsk... another blind ignorant fellow who fails to read books and disregards anything that would bring him knowledge.

Here's a quote from a left leaning, well known web site:

The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories.

North American Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That statement confirms all the other information I've read on the subject.

WASHINGTON — Forget conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, black helicopters, Sept. 11, 2001. This is the big one.

We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatán to the Yukon. This "SuperCorridor" would allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say goodbye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language.

The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the Commerce Department.

As do many modern rumors, fears of a North American Union began with a few grains of truth and leapt to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

Nation & World | Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears | Seattle Times Newspaper

Go back to the conspiracy forum. I'm sure there are many there that will pat you on the back for your cleverness.

 

[Keorythe]

The determination if a law is “constitutional” lies with Congress, NOT the president or Executive Branch. There is a difference between “execute” and “legislate”. You might want to look them up.

Just want to point out a minor flaw. The Legislative branch does not in anyway determine if a law is "constitutional". That lies in the Judicial branch. Congress has (and will continue in the future) passed laws that have been challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.

The President has an incredible amount of power which does not need Congressional approval which is guaranteed under the constitution (one of the reasons why Obama scares me). However, this war between Congress and the Executive branch has been going on for a long long time now.

 

[JMak]

Just want to point out a minor flaw. The Legislative branch does not in anyway determine if a law is "constitutional". That lies in the Judicial branch.

Minor quibble, well, not so minor.

Where in the Constitution is the Judicial Branch empowered as the final arbiter of what is constitutional or not? IMO, there is no such authority granted.

The President has an incredible amount of power which does not need Congressional approval which is guaranteed under the constitution (one of the reasons why Obama scares me). However, this war between Congress and the Executive branch has been going on for a long long time now.

Bam!

I'm always curious why so many people simply ignore the constitutional squabbling between the branches. The irony is that if Bush were a Democratic President there'd be very little whining about his efforts to streghten the Executive and throw off the interference of the Congress.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Just want to point out a minor flaw. The Legislative branch does not in anyway determine if a law is "constitutional". That lies in the Judicial branch. Congress has (and will continue in the future) passed laws that have been challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.

The President has an incredible amount of power which does not need Congressional approval which is guaranteed under the constitution (one of the reasons why Obama scares me). However, this war between Congress and the Executive branch has been going on for a long long time now.

What I was inferring was that Congress takes into consideration the constitutionality of a bill before they vote on it. Although, how much of this goes on I'm not clear.

Bush has used signing statements and Executive Orders to in effect create his own version of laws.

If Obama scares you and Bush didn't, I don't think you'll be pleasantly surprised with how much attention Obama puts on the true meaning of the Constitution. I won't get into what Bush-Cheney thinks of that document.

 

[JMak]

What I was inferring was that Congress takes into consideration the constitutionality of a bill before they vote on it. Although, how much of this goes on I'm not clear.

Does Congress? As I cited before, appropriations bills passd by Congress and submitted to the President almost always contain a legislative veto provision which the Court has explicitly ruled is unconstitutional. Despite this fact, Congress continues to insert the provision.

Nonetheless, your comment earlier was unequivocal and was a direct response to my comment that the President has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution which necessarily involves then reviewing legislation from a constitutionality perspective. You were arguing that the President has no duty or authority to do so and then said unequivocally that Congress determines the constitutionality of laws. Don't backpedal now.

Bush has used signing statements and Executive Orders to in effect create his own version of laws.

I am asking you a third time to cite even a single example of this.

If Obama scares you and Bush didn't, I don't think you'll be pleasantly surprised with how much attention Obama puts on the true meaning of the Constitution. I won't get into what Bush-Cheney thinks of that document.

So now you have no problem with Obama determining the true meaning of Constitution...but you did with Bush?

Hypocrisy, please pickup the white courtesy phone....hypocrisy....

:roll:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

YouTube - Dick Cheney Says The Powers Of The President Are Unlimited

Is this fool not the most dangerous VP, or man, in the world? With this neo-con, right winger whispering in dumbo's ear, is it any wonder why Bush has taken the illegal, anti-American, treasonist actions that will guarantee he goes down in history as the Worst President In History?

Listen to this entire video and then ask yourself,
"Does Dick Cheney believe our government should follow the U.S. Constitution?"

That piece there is propaganda equal to the opposit sides propaganda. So I am going to comment, in general about the "questions in question" here..

Dick Chaney is a moron.. When the president(also vice president) is sworn in he also swears to "serve the country to the best of his abilities".. I guess Chaney has completely overlooked that in his obsessions with "terrorism" and "security".
Also, the president isnt suppose to have unlimited powers, but after this administrations intervention to gathering as much powers in the hand of the president as they can, that is almost true now.
Its clear in almost all contexts that Chaney do not believe in the constitution AT ALL. Chaney deserve to die a painful death right after history books in general described him as the biggest most corrupted moron of US politics ever.

 

[JMak]

Dick Chaney is a moron..

Because you disagree with him? Now we know you debate in bad faith.

When the president(also vice president) is sworn in he also swears to "serve the country to the best of his abilities".. I guess Chaney has completely overlooked that in his obsessions with "terrorism" and "security".

How so? What, specifically has Cheney done that persuades you he has overlooked his duty to serve the country?

Again, do you think he has overlooked this duty merely because you disagree with his take on the powers of the Executive?

Also, the president isnt suppose to have unlimited powers,

No one is suggesting a President does. Bush nor Cheney make such a claim. Their actions certain do not reflect such a perception of their office.

but after this administrations intervention to gathering as much powers in the hand of the president as they can, that is almost true now.

What interventions?

Its clear in almost all contexts that Chaney do not believe in the constitution AT ALL.

Hmmm, and not only did they permit elections to take place, but we're about to see yet another transfer of power in the Executive Branch.

Look, stick to what you know rather than letting your Bush Derangement tak eover your posts.

Chaney deserve to die a painful death right after history books in general described him as the biggest most corrupted moron of US politics ever.

Blah, blah, blah...yet another demonstration that BDS is alive and well...