Bush Investigated...

[Bullypulpit]

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) stated, on Lou Dobbs this evening, that Chimpy McPresident has exceeded his constitutional authority with his use of signing statements.

Chimpy has used signing statements to basically invalidate portions of legislation that come to his desk, after passing both Houses of Congress, which he disagrees with or differs from his interretation of just what constitutes the limits of presidential and executive power.

Senator Specter also went on to say that Chimpy exceeded his authority with these signing statements. The proper course would have been for Chimpy to send the bill back to Congress with an explanation of what would be needed to gain his signature on the bill. Instead, he signed the bill into law with a signing statement outlining what provisions he and his administration would, and would not, abide by. In essence, setting himself and his administration above the law. His use of signing statements directly contravenes Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:

<blockquote>Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; <b><i>If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.</b></i> But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. - <i>emphasis mine</i></blockquote>

If you will notice, nowhere does it state that Chimpy can:

<blockquote>"...Declare any portion of legislation he signs invalid if it differs from his interpretation of presidential and executive powers under Article II of the US constitution..." - <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/specter-presses-bush-administration-on.php><i>Jurist</i>, 6/16/06</a></blockquote>


So much for the rule of law. So much for the Constitution. But as far as Chimpy is concerned the Constitution is "...Nothing but a goddamned piece of paper..." anyways.

 

[Gunny]

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) stated, on Lou Dobbs this evening, that Chimpy McPresident has exceeded his constitutional authority with his use of signing statements.

Chimpy has used signing statements to basically invalidate portions of legislation that come to his desk, after passing both Houses of Congress, which he disagrees with or differs from his interretation of just what constitutes the limits of presidential and executive power.

Senator Specter also went on to say that Chimpy exceeded his authority with these signing statements. The proper course would have been for Chimpy to send the bill back to Congress with an explanation of what would be needed to gain his signature on the bill. Instead, he signed the bill into law with a signing statement outlining what provisions he and his administration would, and would not, abide by. In essence, setting himself and his administration above the law. His use of signing statements directly contravenes Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:

<blockquote>Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; <b><i>If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.</b></i> But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. - <i>emphasis mine</i></blockquote>

If you will notice, nowhere does it state that Chimpy can:

<blockquote>"...Declare any portion of legislation he signs invalid if it differs from his interpretation of presidential and executive powers under Article II of the US constitution..." - <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/specter-presses-bush-administration-on.php><i>Jurist</i>, 6/16/06</a></blockquote>


So much for the rule of law. So much for the Constitution. But as far as Chimpy is concerned the Constitution is "...Nothing but a goddamned piece of paper..." anyways.

This, of course, sets Bush apart from Clinton endowing himself with the "line-item veto" HOW exactly?

I'm beginning to think Specter needs a (D) after his name.

 

[Bullypulpit]

This, of course, sets Bush apart from Clinton endowing himself with the "line-item veto" HOW exactly?

I'm beginning to think Specter needs a (D) after his name.

Ya just can't let go of Goatboy...Can you? You can't deal with the issue at hand so you drag out that adulterous swine's name.

As for the line-item veto, it was adjudged unconstitutional as it usurped the authority of Congress with regards to budgetary and spending authority. BTW, Goatboy did not "endow" himself with anything. The Line Item Veto Act was passed by Congress in 1996. So, he acted under authority granted him by Congress.

Chimpy McPresident has acted unilateraly to place his administration above the law, usurping the authority of Congress to make laws and the Judiciary to interpret those laws.

Yet again, facts seem to be noting more some vague shadow on the periphery of your consciousness. Dismissed.

 

[Gunny]

Ya just can't let go of Goatboy...Can you? You can't deal with the issue at hand so you drag out that adulterous swine's name.

As for the line-item veto, it was adjudged unconstitutional as it usurped the authority of Congress with regards to budgetary and spending authority. BTW, Goatboy did not "endow" himself with anything. The Line Item Veto Act was passed by Congress in 1996. So, he acted under authority granted him by Congress.

Chimpy McPresident has acted unilateraly to place his administration above the law, usurping the authority of Congress to make laws and the Judiciary to interpret those laws.

Yet again, facts seem to be noting more some vague shadow on the periphery of your consciousness. Dismissed.

The point was to show relevancy. When it comes to politics, Democrats are jsut as bad as Republicans. While you may want to wipe Billybob under the rug as irrelevant, as the last Dem-o-crap President, he IS relevant.

What you are basically saying is you are all for a Congress that basically keeps the President powerless. So what is the point of even having one?

 

[Bullypulpit]

The point was to show relevancy. When it comes to politics, Democrats are jsut as bad as Republicans. While you may want to wipe Billybob under the rug as irrelevant, as the last Dem-o-crap President, he IS relevant.

What you are basically saying is you are all for a Congress that basically keeps the President powerless. So what is the point of even having one?

Since I never voted for Goatboy, your assertions are pointless.

AS for Congress keeping the POTUS powerless...you are, yet again, wrong. I am simply for Congress performing its oversight duties. simply wish for Congress to pursue its oversight duties of the executive branch.

 

[Gunny]

Since I never voted for Goatboy, your assertions are pointless.

I made no such assertion. I brought him up for the reason already stated ... as a comparison of the last Dem President to the current Republican one.
AS for Congress keeping the POTUS powerless...you are, yet again, wrong. I am simply for Congress performing its oversight duties. simply wish for Congress to pursue its oversight duties of the executive branch.

The battle for power between the legislature and executive branch has been going on since Day One. Nothing new here. It isn't something that magically cropped up because of Bush.

 

[MtnBiker]

Is President Bush the only President to use signing statements?

If not how many other Presidents used them and how?

 

[jillian]

Is President Bush the only President to use signing statements?

If not how many other Presidents used them and how?

Many presidents have affixed signing statements, but they have never been used in lieu of veto to undercut legistlation or to change its intent.

 

[MtnBiker]

How has President Bush used a signing statement to undermine legislation or in lieu of veto?

 

[jillian]

How has President Bush used a signing statement to undermine legislation or in lieu of veto?

This says it far better than I could.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

And note, the author is Nixon's guy John Dean.

 

[MtnBiker]

Good article, he mentions a book that claims uses and abuses of signing statements by Regan, Bush 1 and Clinton. Also there was no specific example of an abusive statement by President Bush. Is there an example of a signing statement by Bush?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This says it far better than I could.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

And note, the author is Nixon's guy John Dean.

All i've seen bush say in these is he will not follow it if he deems it to violate his constitutional authority as president. What's wrong with that? You just can't stand the cojones on this guy.

 

[jillian]

Good article, he mentions a book that claims uses and abuses of signing statements by Regan, Bush 1 and Clinton. Also there was no specific example of an abusive statement by President Bush. Is there an example of a signing statement by Bush?

I haven't read the book he mentions. But if you follow the links in this article, it might give you the answers you want. The Boston Globe article, in particular, sets out the information pretty clearly.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/aba-to-investigate-bush-signing.php

Anyway, have to run. Have a great day.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I haven't read the book he mentions. But if you follow the links in this article, it might give you the answers you want. The Boston Globe article, in particular, sets out the information pretty clearly.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/aba-to-investigate-bush-signing.php

Anyway, have to run. Have a great day.

Jillian, this is utter nonsense and you know it. All he has done is said he will interpret the law consistent with his understanding of the constitution. If you think he interprets wrongly, challenge him on a specific. THis is just lefties with their knickers in a twist, as usual.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Jillian, this is utter nonsense and you know it. All he has done is said he will interpret the law consistent with his understanding of the constitution. If you think he interprets wrongly, challenge him on a specific. THis is just lefties with their knickers in a twist, as usual.

Well, he apparently has no understanding of the Constitution, and he is being challenged on specifics. Or wasn't the Supreme Court's decision regarding the GITMO detainees specific enough?

BEWARE! Z.O.G. IS WATCHING YOU RWA!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, he apparently has no understanding of the Constitution, and he is being challenged on specifics. Or wasn't the Supreme Court's decision regarding the GITMO detainees specific enough?

BEWARE! Z.O.G. IS WATCHING YOU RWA!

They must challenge him on everything they have a problem with. You just can't simply force someone to abandon doing their job according to their understanding of the constitution, especially not the president.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, this is utter nonsense and you know it. All he has done is said he will interpret the law consistent with his understanding of the constitution. If you think he interprets wrongly, challenge him on a specific. THis is just lefties with their knickers in a twist, as usual.

I've rarely seen anyone with as much difficulty discerning fact from fantasy as you.

I do believe your conspiracy theories suit you better than your feeble attempts at Constitutional analysis. Luckily people who really understand what he did are ultimately going to be the ones to have the final say.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've rarely seen anyone with as much difficulty discerning fact from fantasy as you.

I do believe your conspiracy theories suit you better than your feeble attempts at Constitutional analysis. Luckily people who really understand what he did are ultimately going to be the ones to have the final say.

You're nothing but hot air.

 

[jillian]

You're nothing but hot air.

Don't you have a new Noahide conspiracy on the NWO to uncover? :duh3:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't you have a new Noahide conspiracy on the NWO to uncover? :duh3:

But seriously. All bush has said is he will act according to his perception of his constitutional authority. WHy is that so threatening to you?