Signing statments (1 Viewer)

[jfuh]

From George Washington to the end of Bill Clinton, the total number of signing statments ever made has been 320. Bush Jr has alone issued around 750 signing statments. Changing laws all together. The most famous is the McCain anti-torture law banning any form of torture. What you probably didn't know is that upon signing the bill into law Bush added a postscript statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
In other words, it is for the president, not Congress or the courts, to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law.

I wonder just how loudly Bush and his base will be yelling when a president of the opposition takes power and starts manipulating around with the law the way the white house is doing today?

Source

 

[MSgt]

From George Washington to the end of Bill Clinton, the total number of signing statments ever made has been 320. Bush Jr has alone issued around 750 signing statments. Changing laws all together. The most famous is the McCain anti-torture law banning any form of torture. What you probably didn't know is that upon signing the bill into law Bush added a postscript statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
In other words, it is for the president, not Congress or the courts, to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law.

I wonder just how loudly Bush and his base will be yelling when a president of the opposition takes power and starts manipulating around with the law the way the white house is doing today?

Source

They'll probably play the same despicable partisan game.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

They'll probably play the same despicable partisan game.

you know, I was gonna get all vituperative about the inherent hypocrisy, but what's the point? They're politicians, of course they're going to exploit all the laxity we give them. But just because either side disregards the strictures of the Constitution when they can get away with it, it doesn't make it right.

 

[aps]

Why aren't people acknowledging that George Bush has more than doubled the amount of "signing statements" in less than 6 years than all other presidents combined. Somehow I don't see a democratic president adding on a bunch of signing statements. President Bush seems to think he is above all laws. It's rather disgusting. :roll:

 

[BubbaBob]

What you probably didn't know is that upon signing the bill into law Bush added a postscript statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
In other words, it is for the president, not Congress or the courts, to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law.Source

Hmmm...let's see...the president's oath of office includes a reference to defending and upholding the constitution. The example you just gave says nothing except that Bush intends to do just that.

Another Bush Basher failure...keep trying.

BubbaBob

 

[aps]

Hmmm...let's see...the president's oath of office includes a reference to defending and upholding the constitution. The example you just gave says nothing except that Bush intends to do just that.

Another Bush Basher failure...keep trying.

BubbaBob

Why do you think Bush feels the need to reiterate that oath when it is inherent in his duties as President?

By the way, I am not sure if you know this, but there are 2 other branches of government, and one of them has oversight of the President. Just so you know, BubbaBob.

 

[MSgt]

Why aren't people acknowledging that George Bush has more than doubled the amount of "signing statements" in less than 6 years than all other presidents combined. Somehow I don't see a democratic president adding on a bunch of signing statements. President Bush seems to think he is above all laws. It's rather disgusting. :roll:

Well, it's a bit easy and a little obtuse to say this while disregarding the events that have occurred during his Presidency.

1) 9/11 smacked our government in the face and unprecedented changes needed to be made.

2) Hurrican Katrina wrecked New Orleans and exposed to us the bureaucracy that stifles immediate action within our borders. The coordination between FEMA, government, and military was slow to move. Much of this was due to civil liberty laws, government safeties between Federal and state, and an awakening that what looks good on paper does not always look good in reality.

3) The Social Security problem.

4) Our southern immigration problem.


These are just four of the biggies. Our country and military is in a transition phase. Our country is in need of repair on many levels and the passed down traditions that have kept us safe in the past are not adequate enough to keep us safe from today's and tomorrow's threats. The world is in conflict in every region. If looked at closely, you will see that the rebelling and casting away of old orders is a commonn occurrence. The world is growing and this is a time of intense conflict. We have entered into an era of constant warfare. The future is going to be a series of Iraqs, Bosnias, and Somalias (this is the think tank prediction and I agree). Wars like the Gulf War - a war gamers dream that pttied two big militaries in a featureless desert away from civillians - are not likely to happen again. After the U.S.S.R. fell, we found ourselves as lost and without focus as the Kremlin. We were, all of a sudden, without a rival super power to focus on. We began to face something much uglier. We were faced with religious zealousy, genocides, famine, and ethnic cleansings. We were not prepared and we still aren't. Throw in the fact that our economics and free trades are closely situated near or in these areas. I think the world is in a growing stage and it is shaking off the old orders all over the world. Much of it has to do with the information age. (If the mobile printing press helped to contribute to the religious fall out in early 16th century Europe....imagine what the Internet is doing to the world today.) Today's world is full of civilizations that are either clinging to old orders and are unable (or unwilling) to process the free flow of information or civilizations that are shedding those old orders and facing forward.

Our laws are meant to protect - not to restrict us from safeguarding ourselves. I am not surprised at all at the amount of "signing statements." The next President will be exposed to all of this worldy and internal mess as well. He'll/she'll do a fair amount of scrutinizing also.

 

[jfuh]

1) 9/11 smacked our government in the face and unprecedented changes needed to be made.

Changes yes, but not to civil liberties which is what this president has done. Even admist congress making new laws to keep presidential powers in check Bush uses signing statements to reverse those checks.

2) Hurrican Katrina wrecked New Orleans and exposed to us the bureaucracy that stifles immediate action within our borders. The coordination between FEMA, government, and military was slow to move. Much of this was due to civil liberty laws, government safeties between Federal and state, and an awakening that what looks good on paper does not always look good in reality.

NO was a catastrophic failure not because of safties that had been in place. FEMA　performed brilliantly and exactly as it should've during 9/11, it was when Bush added the additional beuaracratic loop of Homeland security and put FEMA underneath it that NO was such a great catastrophie.
9/11 was caused by beuracratic non-sense in the intelligence community. But instead of cutting away at that non-sense, what does the "small govermnet conservative" do? They make another big government decision by setting more beuracratic bs.

3) The Social Security problem.

Privatization will not work.

4) Our southern immigration problem.

You mean illegal immigration right? What about the northern illegal immigration problem? ARen't you overlooking that?

These are just four of the biggies. Our country and military is in a transition phase. Our country is in need of repair on many levels and the passed down traditions that have kept us safe in the past are not adequate enough to keep us safe from today's and tomorrow's threats. The world is in conflict in every region. If looked at closely, you will see that the rebelling and casting away of old orders is a commonn occurrence. The world is growing and this is a time of intense conflict. We have entered into an era of constant warfare. The future is going to be a series of Iraqs, Bosnias, and Somalias (this is the think tank prediction and I agree). Wars like the Gulf War - a war gamers dream that pttied two big militaries in a featureless desert away from civillians - are not likely to happen again. After the U.S.S.R. fell, we found ourselves as lost and without focus as the Kremlin. We were, all of a sudden, without a rival super power to focus on. We began to face something much uglier. We were faced with religious zealousy, genocides, famine, and ethnic cleansings. We were not prepared and we still aren't. Throw in the fact that our economics and free trades are closely situated near or in these areas. I think the world is in a growing stage and it is shaking off the old orders all over the world. Much of it has to do with the information age. (If the mobile printing press helped to contribute to the religious fall out in early 16th century Europe....imagine what the Internet is doing to the world today.) Today's world is full of civilizations that are either clinging to old orders and are unable (or unwilling) to process the free flow of information or civilizations that are shedding those old orders and facing forward.

The world has always been in a constant state of unrest since WWI, it was not until the advent of the two great super-powers, the USSR and the US that prevented these conflicts from breaking out. Instability would've caused trigger happy military to launch nukes.
Right now the instability is from ideology. You can not fight someones faith nor terrorism with military might. For if military intervention against faith and terrorism were to work, then by default, Israel should be the safest and most secure country in the world, reality prooves otherwise. The instability of the middle east is of our own causes. We can't sanction Iran because doing so would raise oil rates even higher. We can't piss off the Saudi's because that would raise oil rates even higher as well. In essense we're a bitch to the violent radicalist countries of the middle east regardless of how loudly we're shouting. No spinless politician is going to put thier butt on the line for what's right because rising oil rates could well mean not getting re-elected.

Our laws are meant to protect - not to restrict us from safeguarding ourselves. I am not surprised at all at the amount of "signing statements." The next President will be exposed to all of this worldy and internal mess as well. He'll/she'll do a fair amount of scrutinizing also.

It is not up to the president to dictate law. That is the job of the judiciary branch. The president is not above the law by any means whatsoever.

 

[MSgt]

Changes yes, but not to civil liberties which is what this president has done. Even admist congress making new laws to keep presidential powers in check Bush uses signing statements to reverse those checks.

NO was a catastrophic failure not because of safties that had been in place. FEMA　performed brilliantly and exactly as it should've during 9/11, it was when Bush added the additional beuaracratic loop of Homeland security and put FEMA underneath it that NO was such a great catastrophie.
9/11 was caused by beuracratic non-sense in the intelligence community. But instead of cutting away at that non-sense, what does the "small govermnet conservative" do? They make another big government decision by setting more beuracratic bs.

Privatization will not work.



You mean illegal immigration right? What about the northern illegal immigration problem? ARen't you overlooking that?

The world has always been in a constant state of unrest since WWI, it was not until the advent of the two great super-powers, the USSR and the US that prevented these conflicts from breaking out. Instability would've caused trigger happy military to launch nukes.
Right now the instability is from ideology. You can not fight someones faith nor terrorism with military might. For if military intervention against faith and terrorism were to work, then by default, Israel should be the safest and most secure country in the world, reality prooves otherwise. The instability of the middle east is of our own causes. We can't sanction Iran because doing so would raise oil rates even higher. We can't piss off the Saudi's because that would raise oil rates even higher as well. In essense we're a bitch to the violent radicalist countries of the middle east regardless of how loudly we're shouting. No spinless politician is going to put thier butt on the line for what's right because rising oil rates could well mean not getting re-elected.

It is not up to the president to dictate law. That is the job of the judiciary branch. The president is not above the law by any means whatsoever.

Exactly my point.


I also must point out that you have missed the bigger issues surrounding the events of the world in the last 20 years. What is occurring today is nowhere near what has occurred since WWI. The study you should look into surrounds the information age. It is very enlightening. History is full of distinct perspectives. We are currently going through one.

 

[oldreliable67]

9/11 was caused by beuracratic non-sense in the intelligence community.

Not hardly. 9/11 was solely unequivocally caused by a group of radical Islamists. Our failure to detect and prevent 9/11 was caused by various forms of bureaucratic blind-spots (some of which date back to the '70s) and failures in the intel community.

 

[jfuh]

Exactly my point.


I also must point out that you have missed the bigger issues surrounding the events of the world in the last 20 years. What is occurring today is nowhere near what has occurred since WWI. The study you should look into surrounds the information age. It is very enlightening. History is full of distinct perspectives. We are currently going through one.

Information technology has only accelerated the spread of information and mass of information at an unprecedented level in history. However, it has not changed the overall landscape of the most basic of human interactions or for that matter human nature.
The most simplistic and obvious of example I would use is this website. Though there are many of us whom are open to debate and exchange of ideas, however, there's a dominant and loud portion of us that are so gounded in extreemist ideology and arrogance it doesn't matter what information is presented. These are the same mentalities of the orthodox religions who deal only in absolutes.

When I brought in the instances of WWI, what I was referencing is to the domino effect. The conflicts of today were already present during WWI but the two world wars and the later two super powers subdued these conflicts. It was just a matter of time.
With the fall of the USSR, ironically, these conflicts re-arrose. Those that we supported - Iraq, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, have now turned around and are biting us in our a ss.

The only way to quell this anger and frustration is not through more military action, but by reflecting upon our selves.
A strong general can quell a battle ground by his presence alone. A powerful general can quell the conflict simply by the announcement of his participation. A great general can quell any conflict simply by his existance.
Right now the US is neither of those, yet we were once the second.

 

[MSgt]

Information technology has only accelerated the spread of information and mass of information at an unprecedented level in history. However, it has not changed the overall landscape of the most basic of human interactions or for that matter human nature.The most simplistic and obvious of example I would use is this website. Though there are many of us whom are open to debate and exchange of ideas, however, there's a dominant and loud portion of us that are so gounded in extreemist ideology and arrogance it doesn't matter what information is presented. These are the same mentalities of the orthodox religions who deal only in absolutes.

When I brought in the instances of WWI, what I was referencing is to the domino effect. The conflicts of today were already present during WWI but the two world wars and the later two super powers subdued these conflicts. It was just a matter of time.
With the fall of the USSR, ironically, these conflicts re-arrose. Those that we supported - Iraq, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, have now turned around and are biting us in our a ss.

The only way to quell this anger and frustration is not through more military action, but by reflecting upon our selves.
A strong general can quell a battle ground by his presence alone. A powerful general can quell the conflict simply by the announcement of his participation. A great general can quell any conflict simply by his existance.
Right now the US is neither of those, yet we were once the second.

You are still missing it, but you are finally starting to see the bigger issues.

The world is split in two. Those that can process the free flow of information and those that cannot or will not. Those that cannot or will not are obvious. They are the same civilizations that subjugate their women. They are the same civilizations who oppress and control through religion. They are the the same civilizations that are cliniging to past down traditions that will not work in the 21st century. They are the same civilizations where we are witnessing extreme Radicalism.

After the Kremlin fell, we found ourselves facing what we used to stand for. Fighting for freedom and democracy. No longer faced with a Super Power, we discovered our next enemy - the human soul. We were not prepared for the ethnic cleansings, religious fanaticism and bigotries that have ravaged whole civilizations.

Nothing we can do, with regards to "reflecting on ourselves" will quell this problem. Tyrants will not be appeased. Kill the terrorists now, unclench our fists later.

 

[jfuh]

You are still missing it, but you are finally starting to see the bigger issues.

The world is split in two. Those that can process the free flow of information and those that cannot or will not. Those that cannot or will not are obvious. They are the same civilizations that subjugate their women. They are the same civilizations who oppress and control through religion. They are the the same civilizations that are cliniging to past down traditions that will not work in the 21st century. They are the same civilizations where we are witnessing extreme Radicalism.

After the Kremlin fell, we found ourselves facing what we used to stand for. Fighting for freedom and democracy. No longer faced with a Super Power, we discovered our next enemy - the human soul. We were not prepared for the ethnic cleansings, religious fanaticism and bigotries that have ravaged whole civilizations.

Nothing we can do, with regards to "reflecting on ourselves" will quell this problem. Tyrants will not be appeased. Kill the terrorists now, unclench our fists later.

Who are the terrorists? Terrorism is an ideology that has stood the test of time. It's an enemy that does not bleed, it's an enemy that will never die. You cut one head, another one pops up to replace it. Terrorism is the ideology to invoke fear. Right now, the terrorists are winning. That's not just to encompass the islamic fundamentalists either. But of also the fear tactics that this administration uses in order for us to ignore it's illegal activities such as wiretaps, proclamations of being above the law through re-interpreting law. Thus avoiding the real issues all together.
We went to war with Iraq, completely unrelated to AQ, because this administration told us to fear Iraq. The fear bar code telling us how much to be afraid through colors.
How is that in any difference to what terrorists in islamic fundamentalists do. God fearing is a good attribute?
Sorry, but I'm not going to be blinded by such rhetoric, and I'm not going to live in submission to artificial fears.

 

[MSgt]

Who are the terrorists? Terrorism is an ideology that has stood the test of time. It's an enemy that does not bleed, it's an enemy that will never die. You cut one head, another one pops up to replace it. Terrorism is the ideology to invoke fear. Right now, the terrorists are winning. That's not just to encompass the islamic fundamentalists either. But of also the fear tactics that this administration uses in order for us to ignore it's illegal activities such as wiretaps, proclamations of being above the law through re-interpreting law. Thus avoiding the real issues all together.
We went to war with Iraq, completely unrelated to AQ, because this administration told us to fear Iraq. The fear bar code telling us how much to be afraid through colors.
How is that in any difference to what terrorists in islamic fundamentalists do. God fearing is a good attribute?
Sorry, but I'm not going to be blinded by such rhetoric, and I'm not going to live in submission to artificial fears.

Nonesense.

You continue to confuse "terrorist" for "terrorism." Killing every "terrorist" we can find, no matter where they hide or when they come to us (Iraq), is the short term goal. Killing Islamic terrorism is the long term goal. You cannot do one without the other.

It's not rhetoric. It's reality. Crying about Iraq and it's relation (or non relation) with AQ has no point to it. It is done. The insurgency is made up of terrorists. They do not want a whole Iraq and they are not concerned about Iraq's freedom. They come across the border to slaughter Muslims who dare for a better life outside of the conscripts of what religious fanatics wish for them. You complain about Conservative Christians, yet completely miss the mark when staring at religious fundamentalism that is on a violent mission all over this region. If not for Iraq, AQ would still have all those bodies we have killed over the last three years. Perhaps you are aware of the 122 dead Somalis over the last three days? Killed by Radical Islam and it's Al-Queda sponsers. The ideology bred form desperation and oppression must change if anything we do against these terrorists every where else is going to matter. Without a democracy in the Middle East for others to aspire towards, it wasn't going to happen.

Your arguments of "right and wrong" do not belong in a world that conducts itself on necessity.

 

[Captain America]

Does anyone here consider the Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafia, Latin Kings, etc terrorists? They have forced their neighborhood citizens indoors and many have to put thick bars on their windows out of fear. They have caused unmeasurable violence with the penal systems and a day doesn't go by that they are not credited with a murder or rape in some city in the nation.

I think we should start with them. Put 'em on a leaky boat to Guantanamo.

 

[jfuh]

Nonesense.

You continue to confuse "terrorist" for "terrorism." Killing every "terrorist" we can find, no matter where they hide or when they come to us (Iraq), is the short term goal. Killing Islamic terrorism is the long term goal. You cannot do one without the other.

It's hardly nonsense at all. The very definition of a terrorist is one who abides by terrorism. For you to think it as a possibility of finding ever terrorist out there is impossible, hardly real world at all. There are afterall other terrorists then simply islamic terrorism.

It's not rhetoric. It's reality. Crying about Iraq and it's relation (or non relation) with AQ has no point to it. It is done. The insurgency is made up of terrorists. They do not want a whole Iraq and they are not concerned about Iraq's freedom. They come across the border to slaughter Muslims who dare for a better life outside of the conscripts of what religious fanatics wish for them.

Turning away from the causes of going to war in Iraq hardly is crying over nothing. It's when ppl stop caring about these causes that allow for such executive abuse of power. The very root of this thread which you have now strayed far from.
Secondly, though it's been said that these insurgents are from across Iraq's borders however the reason that they are not caught has more to do with the fact that Iraqi's don't exactly find the US to welcome in thier homeland neither.

You complain about Conservative Christians, yet completely miss the mark when staring at religious fundamentalism that is on a violent mission all over this region.

I complain not of conservative christians alone, those are just one portion, I argue against religious fanatacism regardless of what religion. Any religion that deals only in absolutes. Very evident from the posts I've made.

If not for Iraq, AQ would still have all those bodies we have killed over the last three years. Perhaps you are aware of the 122 dead Somalis over the last three days? Killed by Radical Islam and it's Al-Queda sponsers.

There is no connection between the two. That argument has long since been rebutted. There was zero connection between Iraq and AQ before the US invasion. This was another executive abuse of power by this administration.

The ideology bred form desperation and oppression must change if anything we do against these terrorists every where else is going to matter. Without a democracy in the Middle East for others to aspire towards, it wasn't going to happen.

Key words there. How and where did such desperation and oppression come to be? Why are they so pissed off against the US?
The short near term cause was from this administrations unilateral decision to go to war with zero support of the international community.
The long term cause was described formerly.
In order for a democracy to function requires the ppls of that region wanting a democracy. Though many in Iraq today indeed want a democracy, however they do not wish for the US's hypocritical model for thier nation.

Your arguments of "right and wrong" do not belong in a world that conducts itself on necessity.

That's your opinion. I have made no argument of absolutes except for the presentation of what has happened and what we should do about it.

For the executive branch to go above the law and take the place of another branch of government in interrpretation of law is an illegal act.
Congress passes unanomously a bill against torture and Bush signs on issuing when it is and when it is not applicable. Congress passes a bill that defines the parameters for signing statments, Bush issues a signing statment stating how the congressional bill is irrelevant. This is clearly an administration that only respects the law when it feels relevent otherwise dismisses. Completely illegal.

 

[cascadian]

Our laws are meant to protect - not to restrict us from safeguarding ourselves. I am not surprised at all at the amount of "signing statements." The next President will be exposed to all of this worldy and internal mess as well. He'll/she'll do a fair amount of scrutinizing also.

Implicit in this argument is that the president is responding to the challenges you mentioned but that Congress is not. Is congress not aware of these problems?

Really what is happening is that the executive branch is asserting more authority than ever before at the expense of Congress. I see no reason why the WOT or any other challenge should mitigate the authority of Congress.

 

[MSgt]

It's hardly nonsense at all. The very definition of a terrorist is one who abides by terrorism. For you to think it as a possibility of finding ever terrorist out there is impossible, hardly real world at all. There are afterall other terrorists then simply islamic terrorism.

Well, I read your first part here and stopped reading. You are doing it again. The same old tactic from thread to thread and post to post. I will quote myself...

"Killing every "terrorist" we can find...."

How do you get that "I think that we will find all terrorists" from the above quote? How do you interpret what I said into some rediculous sentiment that I think we will find them all?

I'll just retire from this thread. I've lost interest in it anyway.

 

[MSgt]

Implicit in this argument is that the president is responding to the challenges you mentioned but that Congress is not. Is congress not aware of these problems?

Really what is happening is that the executive branch is asserting more authority than ever before at the expense of Congress. I see no reason why the WOT or any other challenge should mitigate the authority of Congress.

Congress is mired in partisanships, personal agendas, and bureaucratic tripwires. Congress finds more joy in shaking the rival party than it does about focus.

 

[hipsterdufus]

From George Washington to the end of Bill Clinton, the total number of signing statments ever made has been 320. Bush Jr has alone issued around 750 signing statments. Changing laws all together. The most famous is the McCain anti-torture law banning any form of torture. What you probably didn't know is that upon signing the bill into law Bush added a postscript statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
In other words, it is for the president, not Congress or the courts, to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law.

I wonder just how loudly Bush and his base will be yelling when a president of the opposition takes power and starts manipulating around with the law the way the white house is doing today?

Source

Bush clearly thinks he's above the law. With no checks and balances ,no invegestitions, no hearings, no nothing - he is. For now.....

 

[cascadian]

Congress is mired in partisanships, personal agendas, and bureaucratic tripwires. Congress finds more joy in shaking the rival party than it does about focus.

I have Criticisms of congress too, but the complaints wouldn't be anything new to the Bush II era. This has everything to do with Bush and nothing to do with what's happening in Congress or the world.

 

[jfuh]

Well, I read your first part here and stopped reading. You are doing it again. The same old tactic from thread to thread and post to post. I will quote myself...

"Killing every "terrorist" we can find...."

How do you get that "I think that we will find all terrorists" from the above quote? How do you interpret what I said into some rediculous sentiment that I think we will find them all?

I'll just retire from this thread. I've lost interest in it anyway.

Is this even possible? If you want to talk about rediculous sentiment, look at your own idea.
Again, anyone that abides by the ideals of terrorism is then by definition a terrorist. You can not kill an ideology.
:fyi: your sentiment towards killing terrorist is far of topic and is the very same ideology that Bush preaches to the masses for nothing but fear tactic.
Back on topic, this administration believes it is above the law.

 

[jfuh]

Bush clearly thinks he's above the law. With no checks and balances ,no invegestitions, no hearings, no nothing - he is. For now.....

Sad isn't it?