Bush's Civil Rights Abuses?

[eots]

so you'll criticize Obama for using procedures put into place by Bush? really? that's hysterical. Hypocrite much?

what's more hysterical how this two headed beast divides and conquer you both ..while it works unabated at its agenda.....

 

[eots]

the bushbama doctrine..all the best of ol W with... a hip new look.and minty fresh taste !

 

[del]

STILL waiting for that list of rights and protections I lost.

you're on your own there, Guns.
believe what you want- bush has run roughshod over the Constitution, IMO.
your rights may vary



"The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men are not angels. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition to avert abuses or tyranny. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive, and judicial branches in equilibrium. As Edward Gibbon wrote in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost, when the legislative power is nominated by the executive.”

signing statements are in direct contradiction of the constitution, and only a fool would believe otherwise, imo. congress should never allowed this to have happened.

Restrain this White House - Bruce Fein

 

[PoliticalChic]

i'll be very happy if obama discontinues the use of "signing statements".
bush's use of them has been far more corrosive to freedom and our republic than any covert activities he may have authorized. bush has wiped his ass with the Constitution and Congress has let him do it.

Can you elaborate on how Bush didn't enforce the bills enacted by Congress? And what Congress did about it?

 

[del]

Can you elaborate on how Bush didn't enforce the bills enacted by Congress? And what Congress did about it?

quite simply, he used signing statements to allow himself to cherrypick which legislative provisions he would follow and which ones he would not.this is tantamount to a line item veto which SCOTUS has found to be unconstitutional. in effect, he placed himself above the law. Congress did nothing; that's the problem.

here's a much better take on it.

Restrain this White House - Bruce Fein

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am in a generous mood today, so I'll give you a lesson on reading comprehension. No need to thank me.

The point was not criticism of Obama, it was criticism of YOU, and all of those who voted for him without knowing anything about him.

If he continues Bush's policies, what happened to the reasons that you voted for him?

Now before you have problems with my endnote, I wasn't talking about Obama's clothing. I was referring to a story that the nurse read to you a week or two ago.

"How do you like the emperor's new clothes?"

What do you expect PC? Any new administration has to work within the framework of the job description of President... It is not what laws and rules are left in place as much as how they are applied and, in the case of intelligence gathering during war time, when the rules are changed. If Bush cuts the head off of Al Quedia and shuts down both war fronts before Inauguration Day, I would expect Obama to trim back the spy policies because they would be irrelevant.

-Joe

 

[PoliticalChic]

quite simply, he used signing statements to allow himself to cherrypick which legislative provisions he would follow and which ones he would not.this is tantamount to a line item veto which SCOTUS has found to be unconstitutional. in effect, he placed himself above the law. Congress did nothing; that's the problem.

here's a much better take on it.

Restrain this White House - Bruce Fein

Thanks for responding so quickly. I am a supporter of our president, and am gratified that his policies have protected Americans for seven years. I'm sure you feel the same way, since that is the first reponsibility of our executive.

But I was interested in your post, as the Constitution is our most important guide, certainly more important than any particular president.

The link that you provided seems more a polemic than an enlightenment, and the concept, for me, flies in the face of logic and experience. First, the link is dated over two years ago. Who has controlled Congress for those two years? You're not suggesting that the Democrats and their supporters were willing to bow to the wishes of President Bush, are you? Throwing around the word "impeachment" like chaff in the wind, they would have lept at the chance to brand Bush in this manner. And the NYTimes, which front-paged 56 articles on Abu Ghraib, would have had a field day, n'est–ce pas?

I find it telling that Bruce Fein speaks of the "signing statement" re: " he signed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibiting torture while issuing a signing statement declaring his intent to ignore the law in order to gather military or foreign intelligence," but does not quote or present it. Further, if there were an item that POTUS would not enforce in a bill, it seems evident that the Democrat congress simply would have passed as a singleton.

I fear that this "signing statement" is -- and I refrain from using a barn yard term -- another of those "he stole the election" bogus bumper-stickers. If possible, could you provide a legal definition "signing statement" and the exact place where it is part of law so that I may further examine your concept.

Thanks again.

 

[del]

Thanks for responding so quickly. I am a supporter of our president, and am gratified that his policies have protected Americans for seven years. I'm sure you feel the same way, since that is the first reponsibility of our executive.

But I was interested in your post, as the Constitution is our most important guide, certainly more important than any particular president.

The link that you provided seems more a polemic than an enlightenment, and the concept, for me, flies in the face of logic and experience. First, the link is dated over two years ago. Who has controlled Congress for those two years? You're not suggesting that the Democrats and their supporters were willing to bow to the wishes of President Bush, are you? Throwing around the word "impeachment" like chaff in the wind, they would have lept at the chance to brand Bush in this manner. And the NYTimes, which front-paged 56 articles on Abu Ghraib, would have had a field day, n'est–ce pas?

I find it telling that Bruce Fein speaks of the "signing statement" re: " he signed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibiting torture while issuing a signing statement declaring his intent to ignore the law in order to gather military or foreign intelligence," but does not quote or present it. Further, if there were an item that POTUS would not enforce in a bill, it seems evident that the Democrat congress simply would have passed as a singleton.

I fear that this "signing statement" is -- and I refrain from using a barn yard term -- another of those "he stole the election" bogus bumper-stickers. If possible, could you provide a legal definition "signing statement" and the exact place where it is part of law so that I may further examine your concept.

Thanks again.

you're welcome. while defending the country and its citizens are important, the primary duty of the president is very clearly laid out in the oath taken at inauguration:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

by that measure, i would say george bush has been an abysmal failure.
but i digress... here's a couple of good sites for signing statement info.

i could have easily dug up something more recent than the 2006 article, but i thought that one spoke to the issue pretty clearly. fein is a former asst atty general under reagan. anyway, here you go.

Presidential Signing Statements - George W. Bush - 2001-2008 -- Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

 

[PoliticalChic]

you're welcome. while defending the country and its citizens are important, the primary duty of the president is very clearly laid out in the oath taken at inauguration:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

by that measure, i would say george bush has been an abysmal failure.
but i digress... here's a couple of good sites for signing statement info.

i could have easily dug up something more recent than the 2006 article, but i thought that one spoke to the issue pretty clearly. fein is a former asst atty general under reagan. anyway, here you go.

Presidential Signing Statements - George W. Bush - 2001-2008 -- Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Excellent! Excellent! I have great appreciation for your directing me in an area about which I knew nothing: signing statements. But, from my reading of your original post, I feel that you implied that President Bush had come up with a new, devious, violation of the Constitution aimed at obviating the powers of the Congess. My reading of your links indicates that not only is this not the case, but the use of these signing statements is merely a part of the usual legislative process.

First, the note that "in the technical sense, Bush is not very different from previous administrations" in your link.

Next, 78% of his signing statements raised Constitutional objections to legislation. Seems to me that that is what a president should do, not be a rubber stamp for the Congress. This opens the door for adjudication by the third branch, as is the custom under the Anglo-American system, known as the Common Law.

The signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, as mentioned by Fein, is part of HR 2863, and includes specific Constiutional reasons for disagreement.

To me, the Nussbaum definition makes clear that the Bush administration is within its rights, and there are steps that can be taken by those who disagree.

Thanks again for your expertise.

 

[del]

Excellent! Excellent! I have great appreciation for your directing me in an area about which I knew nothing: signing statements. But, from my reading of your original post, I feel that you implied that President Bush had come up with a new, devious, violation of the Constitution aimed at obviating the powers of the Congess. My reading of your links indicates that not only is this not the case, but the use of these signing statements is merely a part of the usual legislative process.

First, the note that "in the technical sense, Bush is not very different from previous administrations" in your link.

Next, 78% of his signing statements raised Constitutional objections to legislation. Seems to me that that is what a president should do, not be a rubber stamp for the Congress. This opens the door for adjudication by the third branch, as is the custom under the Anglo-American system, known as the Common Law.

The signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, as mentioned by Fein, is part of HR 2863, and includes specific Constiutional reasons for disagreement.

To me, the Nussbaum definition makes clear that the Bush administration is within its rights, and there are steps that can be taken by those who disagree.

Thanks again for your expertise.

i never meant to imply that he was the first or only president to use them. i will say that he has abused them in a manner that i personally find troubling.

i disagree with mr nussbaum's opinion as well, but thanks for taking the time to read up on it.