Above the Law...?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><font color=990000>Above the Law...?</font></h1></center>

    <blockquote><b>Article 2 - The Executive Branch
    Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments</b>

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    <b>Article 2 - The Executive Branch
    Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress</b>

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.</blockquote>

    If you will notice, in these relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution, there is no mention made of the ability of the President or Executive Branch to make laws. That power lies solely with Congress. The interpretation of law lies, not with the President or the Executive Branch, but with the Judicial Branch. The only powers the President or Executive Branch has with respect to laws passed by Congress lies with signing them into law or vetoing them <i>in toto</i>, and the enforcement of said laws.

    Yet President Bush, after signing the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, issued a signing statement which seems to place the president above the law. Now, signing statements are a tool which has been commonly used for a number of years by presidents to voice their opinions on laws passed by Congress which contain provisions they find disagreeable, but insufficient to justify a veto of the bill. That's all they were used for until Dubbyuh swaggered into the White House.

    The signing statement on PATRIOT Act renewal was quietly issued after all the cameras had been turned off...The press corps had been dismissed, and nobody was around to witness this bit of skullduggery. The signing statment, in short, says that Dubbyuh does not feel bound by the notification provisions of the Act which requires that the Executive Branch inform Congress of how the powers outlined in the Act were being used. This information could be witheld at his discretion, citing potential damage to "foreign relations or national security". Notice that "national security" is sucking hind teat to "foreign relations". Dubbyuh goes on to say that, "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the <b>unitary executive branch</b> and to withhold information . . . ".

    But, just what is this "unitary executive branch"? Again, looking back to the powers outined for the Executive Branch in Article 2, Sections 2&3, there is no mention of a "unitary executive branch". The root of this doctrine lies in what is known as the "coordinate construction approach", which states that, "...all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." But the Bush administration takes this notion to its extreme in asserting that this view allows him to actually over-rule or even go around the Legislative and Judicial branches. To quote Jennifer Van Bergen from her <a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html>article for Findlaw's Writ</a>:

    <blockquote>This is a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and possibly a violation of President Bush's oath of office, as well.

    After all, can it be possible that that oath means that the President must uphold the Constitution only as he construes it - and not as the federal courts do?

    And can it be possible that the oath means that the President need not uphold laws he simply doesn't like - even though they were validly passed by Congress and signed into law by him?</blockquote>

    In short, the president has declared in this signing statement, and others, that he stands outside the law, and is a law unto himself. And this clearly stands outside the scope of Presidential powers as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution and, in my uneducated opinion, falls within the realm of high crimes and misdemeanors as outlined in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

    If the President continues to go unchallenged by Congress in this arena, Congress may as well pack their bags and go home, as they will have allowed themselves to slip into irrelevance. Their services will no longer be needed, as the President has usurped the power of Congress to make laws. The Judicial branch may soon be relegated to the same status, as newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito is a long time supporter of just such unlimited presidential power.

    This abuse of power by the Bush administration poses an unprecedented threat to the very rule of law withint this nation, and the Constitution upon which these laws rest. Such power gathered into the hands so few people, with no accoutability to speak of, represents a deadly threat to democracy and its institutions in this country.

    Other Resources:

    <a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html>The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration </a> - John Dean

    <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/>Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement</a> - Charlie Savage <i><b>The Boston Globe</b></i>

    <a href=http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/011106.html>Alito & the Ken Lay Factor</a> - Robert Perry
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Why are you going to the mat to defend the privacy of terrorist phone calls?
     
  3. StoptheMadness1
    Offline

    StoptheMadness1 Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    169
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    Yes, George Bush seems to be proclaiming that he has power not given to him by our founding documents.

    ...But maybe Bush should be above the law, afterall, alqaeda is hiding underneath our beds and in our closets...

    He should be able to easily pass legislation that will protect us from this perilous threat. He summed it up when he said,

    "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

    I couldn't agree more!

    I think the constitution just gets in the way of things, same with the bill of rights. Maybe they are outdated documents? Perhaps they need revision for this new era?

    Some people say we shouldn't sacrifice liberty for security, but I can deal with it. Isn't that what alqaeda wants? For us to question the government?

    I better stay in line...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    The president is charged with fighting plots to set off bombs. The constitution was never intended to protect the rights of terrorists abroad.
     
  5. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +491
    Sorry to disappoint the libs on this board (well, not really), you are wrong (as usual). FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) of 1978 was passed by Congress and has been under judicial scrutiny and unfortunately for you, the judicial branch has decided in FAVOR of the Executive Branch.

    Every president since Carter has been relying on warantless searches and wiretaps. I haven't seen my rights as a citizen eroded. I'm sure if the present administration were doing the things that Bully and his buddies claim, they'd suddenly find themselves in prison for posting contrary views on the USMB. Since they're still around, I assume that either Bush's cronies aren't listening, or that the Bill of Rights is intact.

    According to the FISC, in "re: Sealed Case - 2002", the Executive Branch HAS the power to do this. So long as a case involves agents of foreign powers and is not a criminal investigation....

    FISA is constitutional, the Executive Branch has the power to initiate and conduct warantless searches and wiretaps, so long as the targets are agents of foreign powers and the aim is to secure intelligence, not criminal charges....

    excerpts follow...

    ....

    .

    http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

    And as Columbo used to say.... "Oh, there's just one other thing....."

    Speaking of abuse of Presidential power, I have to ask where in the Constitution is it written that the President has the power to order the IRS to audit the tax returns of organizations and persons who are politically opposed to him (as in the case of President W.J. Clinton)? Was that challenged in court? If so, I'd like to hear about it!!!!

     
  6. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,589
    Thanks Received:
    7,921
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,205
    Can I answer that?

    Because being the ultra leftist liberal whack job that he is, he has no realization of how wrong he is. He, as a typical liberal zealot, would rather defend the very people who would like nothing more than to saw his fucking head off his living body, and hinder the President's ability to protect us from that, than to join in the fight to keep our country safe. They are so consumed with HATE for President Bush, that their minds are completely warped.

    Here's his picture. This should explain much RWA...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I think I'm starting to get it! Thanks for clarifying! :clap1:
     
  8. StoptheMadness1
    Offline

    StoptheMadness1 Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    169
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    When will we learn?

    Will we slip into the depths of tyranny, of despotism, of hellish totalitarianism?

    In Patrick Henry's words,

    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

    ...

    "Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

    Where has this courageous red-blooded spirit gone? What have we become?

    Have we had it too good for too long? Has liberty become the act of switching on the Television, of flipping a burger on the grill?

    Our founding documents were once highly venerated and visiously protected like a wild cat protecting its fresh kill.

    Tyrants have siezed control of this land while many stand by with closed ears and closed eyes.

    This situation is LIBERTY Vs. SLAVERY, the choice is yours. For the sake of our children, for the sake of the generations to come, for God's sake, for your OWN sake, wake up from your daze!, stand up!

    We are in peril, friends. We are in grave danger of being crushed underneath the black boot of tyranny, in the iron fist of the tyrant.

    God help us.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    He will. Soon, I believe. Have you accepted Jesus?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Obsessive/compulsive behavior highlighted by extreme political viewpoints?
     

Share This Page