LeakGate Resolution:Bush's genius.

[Redhots]

The Boston Globe article laid out all of the facts regarding Dubbyuh's signing statement about the torture ban quite nicely.

Thank you Bully.

Bully, unless I'm missing something, this was thrashed out in the early winter. No doubt about it, there are powers that go with Chief executive officer and Commander in Chief that you and others wish GW did not possess. But he does, has, and will for another nearly 3 years.

But then my post wasn't about what powers the President does or does not have, was it.

It was in response to this request.

By the way, many many Presidents add signing statements and none of them say "well...this does not apply to me if I dont want it to" and I defy you to find ANY signing statement originating from the current pPresident that says that.

Which I did, in spades if I do say so myself.

 

[Annie]

Thank you Bully.



But then my post wasn't about what powers the President does or does not have, was it.

It was in response to this request.



Which I did, in spades if I do say so myself.

My response was specified to Bully, by name no less. On the other hand, the rest of your post is nonsense and hubris.

 

[Redhots]

Nonsense and hubris!?

I might be willing to concede to the second, but not the first.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Redhots. Speculating about the powers Bush and CHeney would LIKE to have is pure conjecture. The fact is Bush DOES have the power to declassify what he did. I know you're given to flights of fantasy re: Bush's sinister intentions, but that does make them reality.

 

[CSM]

Then you haven't been paying attention the last 5 1/2 years.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/



Any other requests?

Edited to add Whitehouse link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

So what? That signing statement says exactly what it says, He will follow the law and use the powers that have been granted. You don't like the law then you write your legislature and get them to change it.

 

[CSM]

Thank you Bully.



But then my post wasn't about what powers the President does or does not have, was it.

It was in response to this request.



Which I did, in spades if I do say so myself.

You and RH are full of crap. The signing statement does NOT say the law does not apply to him. It does note that the Congress has no power to curb the powers of the executive branch and in that I agree...the attempt by others such as yourself to portray it as the President setting himself above the law is pure unadulterated horse crap.

 

[CSM]

By the way, just so there is no confusion, here is a link to the actual document in question:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

If you take the time to read it and your comprehension is normal it is easy to determine that the President has stated he will follow the law ".... in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority..." as can be seen in the paragraph quoted here:

"The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief."

 

[Redhots]

CSM I have to say i'm a bit disappointed by your responses.

BTW thanks for link, but I provided that same link in my origonal post, so I know what it says.

If you take the time to read it and your comprehension is normal it is easy to determine that the President has stated he will follow the law ".... in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority..."

*sigh*

You think you're proving me wrong, but you aren't.

They're saying what i'm saying, but with their own sunnyside up spin attachted to it. "The President will follow the law, unless he has a really really good reason not to." that is what they're saying. I've quoted Whitehouse sources saying as much.

Again, he'll follow it when he wants to. At the end of the day that is what it says. It leaves him as the sole judge of what is a good reason and what is not. It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong, he is answerable only to himself.

He can do whatever he wants in this regard and the law cannot touch him.

 

[CSM]

CSM I have to say i'm a bit disappointed by your responses.

BTW thanks for link, but I provided that same link in my origonal post, so I know what it says.



*sigh*

You think you're proving me wrong, but you aren't.

They're saying what i'm saying, but with their own sunnyside up spin attachted to it. "The President will follow the law, unless he has a really really good reason not to." that is what they're saying. I've quoted Whitehouse sources saying as much.

Again, he'll follow it when he wants to. At the end of the day that is what it says. It leaves him as the sole judge of what is a good reason and what is not. It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong, he is answerable only to himself.

He can do whatever he wants in this regard and the law cannot touch him.

If "the law cannot touch him" as you put it, then he is doing nothing wrong.
As for what they are REALLY saying well you have given us your opinion (spin and all) and I disagree with it. If the President does disobey the law, I am sure there will be many many Democrats and not a few Republicans right there to slap the cuffs on him. Despite your best effort, I do not buy your (or the Globe's) interpretation of the signing statement.

As for being disappointed in my responses, I just bet you are! However, your reaction to my response holds little weight in my scheme of things; I imagine my opinion holds little weight with you as well.

 

[jillian]

By the way, just so there is no confusion, here is a link to the actual document in question:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

If you take the time to read it and your comprehension is normal it is easy to determine that the President has stated he will follow the law ".... in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority..." as can be seen in the paragraph quoted here:

"The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief."

The president does not have the right to unilaterally determine whether or not the legislature has placed an improper and unconstitutional burden on the executive branch. Only the Court has the right to such oversight. Hence signing statements limiting the applicablility of laws to those occasions on which the president feels like abiding by their terms being inappropriate and improper.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The president does not have the right to unilaterally determine whether or not the legislature has placed an improper and unconstitutional burden on the executive branch. Only the Court has the right to such oversight. Hence signing statements limiting the applicablility of laws to those occasions on which the president feels like abiding by their terms being inappropriate and improper.

You're improper.

 

[jillian]

You're improper.

No answer to that one, huh?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No answer to that one, huh?

You have no valid point. You're Unitary Executive is mythical, like unicorns, peaceful islam, and an EU with balls.

 

[jillian]

You have no valid point. You're Unitary Executive is mythical, like unicorns, peaceful islam, and an EU with balls.

So you believe the president has the right to insert his own constitutional analysis in place of that of the Supreme Court? Interesting.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you believe the president has the right to insert his own constitutional analysis in place of that of the Supreme Court? Interesting.

:blah2:

 

[Abbey Normal]

LOL! Shocking from someone who thinks Bush is a genius. :

So...what would you call unchecked executive power?

Less dangerous than unchecked Judiciary power.

 

[Abbey Normal]

He hasn't done anything wrong. Iraq had connections to alquaeda. He was monitoring the communications of TERRORISTS. He is able to declassify whatever the hell he wants, however he wants. Your party is a bunch of mewling weenies.

Priceless!

 

[Dr Grump]

:blah2:

:baby:

 

[jillian]

Less dangerous than unchecked Judiciary power.

How so?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

:baby:

Oh. Are you still participating? I thought you wimped out long ago. tard.