Above The Law?

Bullypulpit said:
I don't want <b>ANY</b> president to have that kind of power. After all, would YOU trust a liberal president not to abuse such power? I know I wouldn't.

The President is suppose to challenge Unconstitutional laws. He, like other officials in the government, are required to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
 
Hobbit said:
Don't forget how John Kerry and a couple other Democrat high rollers were in a meeting when the planes hit the WTC. They were shocked, and the next thing they remember was the next plane striking the Pentagon...more than a half hour later.

Who cares where Kerry was. He wasn't president. Remember? :rolleyes:
And Daddy Bush was in a meeting with a Bin Laden relative (I think Osama's father, if I remember correctly)

But Bush sat reading My Pet Goat looking like a deer in the headlights. Real presidential.

Oh...and in answer to the previous question...what would I have had him do? I'd have had him excuse himself gracefully by saying "sorry, children, I have to see to important business. But I want you all to come to the white house real soon and we'll read a book then."

At least then maybe he'd have at least pretended to be able to handle a crisis while 3,000 people died instead of being disengaged.
 
onthefence said:
Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11? And he wasn't reading, he was listening to the children read the book themselves. If you are speak like Moore, at least watch the damn movie.

Yes, Afghanistan was appropriate. IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11. (And Bush had the book in HIS hands....) :)
 
Avatar4321 said:
The President is suppose to challenge Unconstitutional laws. He, like other officials in the government, are required to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

If the president had a problem with any of those laws, he should have exercised his veto power. If Congress were to override his veto, he also could raise challenges, as appropriate, in the courts. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT LAWS HE LIKES AND WHAT LAWS HE DOESN'T.

It is not the president who determines Constitutionality. And if he were worried about the Constitution, he'd make sure that he didn't violate the Fourth Amendment and the laws regarding Habeas Corpus.
 
GunnyL said:
Right, wrong or indifferent, it's OURS, not YOURS, so STFU. When you start paying taxes here you can start telling us what's wrong with it.

Otherwise, clean your own house before presuming to tell me how to clean mine.

Gunny are you sure you're an adult and not an adolescent pretending to be an adult with real life experience? This is the only forum and you're the only poster that I have read who has made a comment like that. Fortunately it reflects on you not the forum.

Put me on ignore if you can't handle it.
 
An interesting article on this subject...

Media continue to ignore Boston Globe reporter's exposés on Bush's "signing statements"
Summary: Major media outlets have largely ignored reports by The Boston Globe's Charles Savage documenting President Bush's apparent willingness to disregard congressional authority through the use of "signing statements" asserting "that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." The media have also ignored the response by Democrats to Savage's reports.
On April 30, Boston Globe staff writer Charlie Savage reported that "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office" by attaching "signing statements" to bills passed by Congress. According to Savage, Bush's signing statements assert "that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution," and Bush is using this authority "[f]ar more than any predecessor." Savage also reported that Bush has filed signing statements to bills indicating that "he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military," that he can bypass "requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees," and that he can defy Supreme Court rulings.

On May 2, Savage reported that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) "blasted President Bush yesterday for having claimed he has the authority to defy more than 750 statutes enacted since he took office, saying that the president's legal theories are wrong and that he must obey the law.

Savage's April 30 and May 2 articles are follow-ups to his March 24 Globe article, which reported that Bush, after signing the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act on March 9 amid much fanfare, quietly filed a signing statement explaining "that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers." The Globe also published an article by Savage on March 28, which reported that in response to Bush's Patriot Act signing statement, Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) -- the ranking Democrats on the House intelligence and judiciary committees, respectively -- "sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking that Bush follow the law." Harman's and Conyers's letter followed a March 15 statement by Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said of Bush's Patriot Act signing statement: "This President appears to believe that he can pick and choose which laws to obey and need never submit to congressional oversight."

The major media largely ignored Savage's March 24 and 28 articles. Savage's latest reports give further insight into Bush's reportedly unprecedented use of signing statements and indicate that opposition to Bush's actions is growing among prominent Democrats in Congress. Nevertheless, the mainstream media have continued to collectively ignore Savage's reporting, as well as the Democratic response.

Savage reported on March 24:

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it "a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a "signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

[...]

Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to "faithfully execute" them.

Except for a short March 24 United Press International article, some scattered editorials and opinion columns, and brief mentions in an April 1 San Francisco Chronicle article and an April 23 Washington Post article, Savage's reporting on Bush's "signing statements" and the Democratic response were ignored by major newspapers and wire services. And aside from Keith Olbermann, who reported on the Globe article on the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, the cable and broadcast news networks ignored the "signing statements" as well.

Savage's April 30 article offered further insight into Bush's use of "signing statements":

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.

[...]

For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

[...]

Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.

Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

According to a Nexis search, the media has yet to acknowledge Savage's latest findings or the response from the Democratic senators (as of this posting), with two exceptions: journalist Eric Umansky, who excerpted Savage's April 30 article in his May 1 "Today's Papers" column for the online magazine Slate; and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who interviewed Savage on the May 1 edition of Countdown. Also, National Journal's Hotline weblog referenced Savage's April 30 article in a May 1 post.

—S.S.M.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020011

So much for the "liberal" media....
 
onthefence said:
A liberal Presidents have abuse such power. They all have libraries. Is this all you've got. Gore lost. Kerry lost. Get over it and shut the fuck up.

Every time your intellectual capacity fails to meet the demands of the debate, you tell folks to stfu. This tactic the refuge of the intellectually lazy and bankrupt, the incompetent, and fans of Bill O'Reilly.

Dismissed.
 
Avatar4321 said:
The President is suppose to challenge Unconstitutional laws. He, like other officials in the government, are required to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

If he has issues regarding the constitutionality of bills he signs into law, he should veto them. It is not within the purview of the POTUS to sign bills into law and then declare that he is not bound by the provisions of said laws. Such actions undermine the very foundations of the rule of law in this country, and the Republic was founded on the notion that it would be a nation under the rule of laws and not of men.
 
Bullypulpit said:
If he has issues regarding the constitutionality of bills he signs into law, he should veto them. It is not within the purview of the POTUS to sign bills into law and then declare that he is not bound by the provisions of said laws. Such actions undermine the very foundations of the rule of law in this country, and the Republic was founded on the notion that it would be a nation under the rule of laws and not of men.

ahhhh one nation under god!....bush speaks to god so he is following the rule of law....tis the rest of you out of step :thanks:
 
Bullypulpit said:
Every time your intellectual capacity fails to meet the demands of the debate, you tell folks to stfu. This tactic the refuge of the intellectually lazy and bankrupt, the incompetent, and fans of Bill O'Reilly.

Dismissed.

I've got your intellectual capacity hangin'. I have zero capacity for those that ignore the misdeeds of some, yet try to manufacture misdeeds for others. I use the term "shut the fuck up" in order to dismiss an argument that is useless.

Also, you can't dismiss an argument that you just responded to. You should have learn this in whatever liberally indoctrinated school that you attended, unless they don't teach that.
 
manu1959 said:
ahhhh one nation under god!....bush speaks to god so he is following the rule of law....tis the rest of you out of step :thanks:

The Constitution does not mention god...Christian or otherwise. Your reach has exceeded your grasp.
 
onthefence said:
I've got your intellectual capacity hangin'. I have zero capacity for those that ignore the misdeeds of some, yet try to manufacture misdeeds for others. I use the term "shut the fuck up" in order to dismiss an argument that is useless.

Also, you can't dismiss an argument that you just responded to. You should have learn this in whatever liberally indoctrinated school that you attended, unless they don't teach that.

You tell folks to "shut the fuck up" in a puerile attempt to drown out arguments you can neither deny nor counter in any meaningful way. It is rather like a small child sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LA! LA! LA!" at the top of their lungs.

As for schooling, yours obviously failed to teach you the rudiments of grammar.
 
If the President is breaking so many laws, then why doesn't anyone sue him? You can George Bush, you simply cannot sue the office of the Presidency. Don't tell me that it can't happen, because a woman once sued Mickey D's because her coffee was hot. She won, maybe you can to. File suit in the 9th District, they are all about shitting on the Constitution and I'm sure that the will be glad to assist you in trying to undercut the Executive Branch, now that you don't control it anymore.
 
Bullypulpit said:
You tell folks to "shut the fuck up" in a puerile attempt to drown out arguments you can neither deny nor counter in any meaningful way. It is rather like a small child sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LA! LA! LA!" at the top of their lungs.

As for schooling, yours obviously failed to teach you the rudiments of grammar.

My grammar is fine. I simply don't feel the need to speak the Queen's English within casual conversation. At least my school taught me that in order to dismiss something that you have to ignore it.
 
onthefence said:
If the President is breaking so many laws, then why doesn't anyone sue him? You can George Bush, you simply cannot sue the office of the Presidency. Don't tell me that it can't happen, because a woman once sued Mickey D's because her coffee was hot. She won, maybe you can to. File suit in the 9th District, they are all about shitting on the Constitution and I'm sure that the will be glad to assist you in trying to undercut the Executive Branch, now that you don't control it anymore.

It is the responsibility of Congress to hold the President accountable for his actions. Given that the Republicans control both houses of Congress AND the White House, such oversight is unlikely, as they have shamefully abdicated these duties.

Your grasp of the Constitution seems a bit tenuous as well.
 
Bullypulpit said:
It is the responsibility of Congress to hold the President accountable for his actions. Given that the Republicans control both houses of Congress AND the White House, such oversight is unlikely, as they have shamefully abdicated these duties.

Your grasp of the Constitution seems a bit tenuous as well.

My grasp on the Constitution is firm. Did you ver think that maybe the majority of Congress feels that the Presidents ations are in accordance with the laws that they have passed? The GOP Congress passed the laws that he is accused of violating, yet they don't feel the need check him on this merely because he is of the same party? This is like saying your cousin stole your wallet, but its ok, because he is you cousin. If the President does something that the Congress feels they need to check, they will be all over him like stink on shit, especially with his numbers in the toilet. Your argument is baseless.
 
onthefence said:
My grasp on the Constitution is firm. Did you ver think that maybe the majority of Congress feels that the Presidents ations are in accordance with the laws that they have passed? The GOP Congress passed the laws that he is accused of violating, yet they don't feel the need check him on this merely because he is of the same party? This is like saying your cousin stole your wallet, but its ok, because he is you cousin. If the President does something that the Congress feels they need to check, they will be all over him like stink on shit, especially with his numbers in the toilet. Your argument is baseless.

No, they've simply chosen to ignore the fact that their first duty lies, not with their party, nor even the President...It lies with the Constitution. They're only now begining to realize, however dimly, just what their lockstep support of this President is costing them.

You're going to have to do better than that.
 
Bullypulpit said:
No, they've simply chosen to ignore the fact that their first duty lies, not with their party, nor even the President...It lies with the Constitution. They're only now begining to realize, however dimly, just what their lockstep support of this President is costing them.

You're going to have to do better than that.

In your opinion. You have yours and I have mine. Agreed?
 

Forum List

Back
Top