Above The Law?

[jillian]

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.

I think with mid-term elections coming up, they're not going to take on their own president. And when half the Congress asks for investigations into these things, they are ignored by the (for now) majority party or called whiners and not even given hearing rooms.

And when the media covers it, they get called "liberal media". Do you think it's going to be Rupert Murdoch and Fox which is gonna make noise about it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bush reserves the right to exercise his own judgement regarding the constitutionality of incursions on his power and his own actions. Is this supposed to be a big deal?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bush reserves the right to exercise his own judgement regarding the constitutionality of incursions on his power and his own actions. Is this supposed to be a big deal?

Ahhhh, ever the simplistic analysis.

Let me spell it out for you. It is about the unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional and Judicial authority by the Executive branch. It is about the President setting himself above the law, thus undermining the rule of law.

 

[CSM]

Ahhhh, ever the simplistic analysis.

Let me spell it out for you. It is about the unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional and Judicial authority by the Executive branch. It is about the President setting himself above the law, thus undermining the rule of law.

Nope. Once again you are wrong. Do a little research (I did) and you will find that is not what signing statements do nor is it how they are used.

The first signing statement ever was presented by Monroe and has been used by various Presidents ever since. Even Clinton used signing statements. In fact Clinton had over 100 signing statements (more than Bush Sr but less than Reagan). For the libs to to cry foul now seems rather hypocritical, but then that is to be expected.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Nope. Once again you are wrong. Do a little research (I did) and you will find that is not what signing statements do nor is it how they are used.

The first signing statement ever was presented by Monroe and has been used by various Presidents ever since. Even Clinton used signing statements. In fact Clinton had over 100 signing statements (more than Bush Sr but less than Reagan). For the libs to to cry foul now seems rather hypocritical, but then that is to be expected.

Indeed Clinton did use signing statements, but you conveniently ignore the fact that he did not attempt to set himself above the law with them, as Dubbyuh has done.

 

[CSM]

Indeed Clinton did use signing statements, but you conveniently ignore the fact that he did not attempt to set himself above the law with them, as Dubbyuh has done.

Not so....Clinton used many of his signing statements exactly as the sitting President has: to preserve the Constitutionally granted powers of the executive branch.

That is what you interpret as "setting himself above the law" for any signing statement by President Bush but would have us ignore for Clinton....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not so....Clinton used many of his signing statements exactly as the sitting President has: to preserve the Constitutionally granted powers of the executive branch.

That is what you interpret as "setting himself above the law" for any signing statement by President Bush but would have us ignore for Clinton....

It's not about Dubbyuh...It's about unlimited presidential power. No President should be trusted with such power. Republican or Democrat...Conservative or Liberal.

 

[Gunny]

It's not about Dubbyuh...It's about unlimited presidential power. No President should be trusted with such power. Republican or Democrat...Conservative or Liberal.

Really? So just which of the three branches is it you think should be dominant? And one always is.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Really? So just which of the three branches is it you think should be dominant? And one always is.

I'll answer that. None should be dominant. That is what checks and balances is all about. However, in times of war(no matter what the reason or who started it), I feel th Executive should take the lead in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. In times of peace, like the nineties(heavy on sarcasm), we can afford to be more balanced.

 

[jillian]

I'll answer that. None should be dominant. That is what checks and balances is all about. However, in times of war(no matter what the reason or who started it), I feel th Executive should take the lead in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. In times of peace, like the nineties(heavy on sarcasm), we can afford to be more balanced.

Absolutely, positively not! Each has it's own role and purpose. But when it comes to determination of Constitutionality ONLY the Court has that right. The executive isn't going to be and shouldn't be trusted to assure the constitutionality of its own behavior.

And a president doesn't get to create a war and then rely on that war to justify gross abuses of his power.

And please forgive me if I sound acerbic on this issue. It's just one which really and truly, I find horrifying.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ahhhh, ever the simplistic analysis.

Let me spell it out for you. It is about the unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional and Judicial authority by the Executive branch. It is about the President setting himself above the law, thus undermining the rule of law.

No. It's about the president reserving the right to be constitutional.

 

[5stringJeff]

Absolutely, positively not! Each has it's own role and purpose. But when it comes to determination of Constitutionality ONLY the Court has that right.

Wrong. All three branches have the ability to determine the Constitutionality of laws and/or bills.

 

[jillian]

Wrong. All three branches have the ability to determine the Constitutionality of laws and/or bills.

No. Only the Court. The other two branches only have the responsibility of "upholding the Constitution". Not the same thing.

What caselaw are you relying on to assert that the executive and legislative branches have oversight power? (Again pointing out that if Bush thought any of these laws was unconstitutional, his sole right was to exercise his veto power....not say they don't apply to him in some surreptitious signing letter that he thought no one would notice).

 

[5stringJeff]

No. Only the Court. The other two branches only have the responsibility of "upholding the Constitution". Not the same thing.

What caselaw are you relying on to assert that the executive and legislative branches have oversight power? (Again pointing out that if Bush thought any of these laws was unconstitutional, his sole right was to exercise his veto power....not say they don't apply to him in some surreptitious signing letter that he thought no one would notice).

First, all three branches are bound by oath to support the Constitution, as seen in Article VII: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Second, there is no caselaw to rely on, because the judiciary did not confer the privledge of determining Constitutionality on the other two branches; those branches are given powers within the Constitution itself. The oath of office gives all three branches the duty and authority to act within the limits of the Constitution, but it never states that one branch is the keeper of those limits. In early American history, several Presidents vetoed bills they deemed unconstitutional; many Congressmen voted against bills for the same reason (and still do).

 

[jillian]

First, all three branches are bound by oath to support the Constitution, as seen in Article VII: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Second, there is no caselaw to rely on, because the judiciary did not confer the privledge of determining Constitutionality on the other two branches; those branches are given powers within the Constitution itself. The oath of office gives all three branches the duty and authority to act within the limits of the Constitution, but it never states that one branch is the keeper of those limits. In early American history, several Presidents vetoed bills they deemed unconstitutional; many Congressmen voted against bills for the same reason (and still do).

You touched on the most important point. Congress didn't vote against these laws. Bush then signed them into law. If Congress thought what they were doing was unconstitutional, they could have not passed the bills into law.

If Bush thought they were unconstitutional, he could have exercised his veto.

It is only the Court that gets to determine Constitutionality. Perfect example. You might think that certain gun laws are unconstitutional. Yet, if you violate those laws, you will go to jail unless the Court determines that they were unconstitutional.

None of us are above the law. And power should not be given to any executive in unlimited fashion.

 

[Gunny]

Absolutely, positively not! Each has it's own role and purpose. But when it comes to determination of Constitutionality ONLY the Court has that right. The executive isn't going to be and shouldn't be trusted to assure the constitutionality of its own behavior.

And a president doesn't get to create a war and then rely on that war to justify gross abuses of his power.

And please forgive me if I sound acerbic on this issue. It's just one which really and truly, I find horrifying.

What I find horrifying is the lefty mind. Besides hypocritical. Y'all weren't quite so imaginitive in your accusations when the President was a Dem. At that time, y'all wanted videotape evidence and a signed confession for ANY accusation against Trailerpark Bill.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'll answer that. None should be dominant. That is what checks and balances is all about. However, in times of war(no matter what the reason or who started it), I feel th Executive should take the lead in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. In times of peace, like the nineties(heavy on sarcasm), we can afford to be more balanced.

Times of war do not justify abuses of power. As we are not engaged in a war declared by Congress with any other nation-state, to say we are in a time of war is disingenuous at best. Even if we were engaged in such a war, the actions of the Executive branch would stil be bound by the Constitution.

To succumb to the fear of terrorist attack and undermine the Constitutionally guarranteed protections of US citizens is to hand victory to the terrorists and give power into the hands of the Executive branch which it will not readily give up.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

to say we are in a time of war is disingenuous at best.

Do you see why people say you guys aren't serious about fighting the war on terror?

 

[5stringJeff]

You touched on the most important point. Congress didn't vote against these laws. Bush then signed them into law. If Congress thought what they were doing was unconstitutional, they could have not passed the bills into law.

If Bush thought they were unconstitutional, he could have exercised his veto.

It is only the Court that gets to determine Constitutionality. Perfect example. You might think that certain gun laws are unconstitutional. Yet, if you violate those laws, you will go to jail unless the Court determines that they were unconstitutional.

None of us are above the law. And power should not be given to any executive in unlimited fashion.

I see what you're getting at. However, many of the laws you reference were passed before Bush came into office, and therefore would not have a chance to veto. And again, almost all the examples you cite have to do with either chain-of-command issues within the Executive branch or the constant give-and-take between the executive and legislative branches. For a great example of this, read up on the War Powers Resolution, which Congress passed, but every President since has found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Since when does "support" mean "do as I see fit with the Constitution." Support and interpret mean very different things

What I find horrifying is the lefty mind. Besides hypocritical. Y'all weren't quite so imaginitive in your accusations when the President was a Dem. At that time, y'all wanted videotape evidence and a signed confession for ANY accusation against Trailerpark Bill.

Oh that argument. But Big Old Bad Bill Clinton might have done it too... so its... uh... fine. I didn't realize that Bush was so beholden to the Clinton legacy. I thought he was elected to office in part to, "restore its dignity." I guess that if he apparently can't use the restroom without checking if Bill Clinton says it's alright, then they aren't really that different.

By the way, good work insulting a former president.