Above The Law?

[Hobbit]

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


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.

The point is that many of the same things Bush is doing were things that Clinton did, but the lefties only think it's wrong when it's a Republican in office.

And, as a native Arkansan, I must say that Clinton does a plenty fine job of insulting himself. Mentioning Clinton without bringing up some embarassment isn't easy.

 

[Mr.Conley]

The point is that many of the same things Bush is doing were things that Clinton did, but the lefties only think it's wrong when it's a Republican in office.

Exactly, the debate here isn't about some "lefties" who supported Clinton's supposed extensions of executive power. Whether or not said lefties (none of whom are here) supported him is irrelevant to the discussion.

What we are discussing is whether a sitting president has the right to override a bill that Congress has passed and he has authorized.

If the only support you can offer to support what Bush's actions is to say that Clinton did it to, and that "the liberals" didn't mind when he added signing statements, then I don't feel as though I can support your position.

I don't care if the democrats are being hypocritical when they speak about this issue; there is still legitimate concern that the president has overstepped his Constitutional bounds.

Until someone shows evidence that the president is not overstepping his limits I can't support this.

For the record: no, saying support and interpret mean the same thing isn't going to change my position.

 

[bush lover]

Instead of whining about our President's liner notes, let's grant him more authority. How many bombings have we had since 9-11? Our President has made us safe. If he needs more power to keep us safe, then give it to him! Our enemies hate our freedoms! I think we have way too much freedom anyway. We need our great leaders like our President to guide our lives for us. This will keep us safe and help us avoid making bad personal decisions and keep away the terrorists. Then we will need less freedom.

 

[jillian]

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.

If the laws were in effect before Bush came into office, he wouldn't be "signing" them and affixing signing statements. So perhaps they had sundowned but were being re-upped.

The War Powers Act does not allow the president to use war as an excuse to abbrogate the Constitution and if you noticed. At least one of the signing statements said the president would not abide by the law if it "interfered with the workings of the executive branch" (that's a paraphrase, I don't feel like looking back for it right now). Now, THAT certainnly has nothing to do with war powers.

He's overstepped....see the Boston Globe article that I posted way back in this thread.

 

[Mr.Conley]

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.

Are you saying the president's interpretation of the Constitution overrides those of BOTH the Congress and the Supreme Court?

And do all laws really become void everytime we get a new president?