Quantcast

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

H8R

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
Forgive me if this is posted already, a search came up with nada.



Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

More:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
 
BurlyShirley

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Something at least similar has been posted. Id like to see #s on past admin's items like these.
 
H8R

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
BurlyShirley said:
Something at least similar has been posted. Id like to see #s on past admin's items like these.
Click to expand...
See the globe graphic below.




April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:


March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.


Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.


Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.


Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.


Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."


Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)


Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.


Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.


Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.


Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
 
LordOpie

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Click to expand...
Translator said:
Bush's signing statement: I don't trust the few select congressmen that would be appointed to review the information.
Click to expand...
Oh, understood.
 
H8R

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
This is an ultra-gem:

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
Click to expand...
 
LordOpie

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
^ how's that different from a line-item veto, which the POTUS specifically does not have that power?
 
LordOpie

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
DRB said:
A line item veto gives Congress the opportunity to override it..... signing statements guts that ability.
Click to expand...
ah, so this POTUS is even more powerful than I thought. He's like Bizarro Clinton.

How come he doesn't have a goatee?
 
Alpha Kenny Body

Alpha Kenny Body

Monkey
Oct 8, 2005
668
0
Mexico
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Click to expand...
Sorry to ask, but what does this means, is it that Bush is against the diversity of races in the intellingence offices?
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
la_cleta said:
Sorry to ask, but what does this means, is it that Bush is against the diversity of races in the intellingence offices?
Click to expand...
Only if you're hysterical. It means that he's against having to hire anyone simply because they're of a given race or gender...

However, the irony is that the human-sources intelligence community is exponentially MORE effective with a broader base of intelligence 'diversity.' Middle-aged , WASPY white dudes make less effective spies, in general, than, say, bi-or-tri-lingual members of minority enthic groups, especially including women of these groups. The operations community knows this, and recruits towards it.

But when you're dealing with technical intelligence collection (satellites, radios, etc.), you should just be hiring the best available talent, regardless of race, sex, age, etc...

All in all, though, the signing statements are at the same time frightening and impotent. I mean, his statements don't have the force of law, and it's the Supreme Court which has the final say. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court simply can't and won't decide on each and every of these issues, so he might simply do whatever he wants, and few in the executive branch will deviate, while Congress may fret from the sideline.

Maybe the only answer is a sort of omnibus Supreme Court case which deals with the issue of the signing statements as a whole, rather than case-by-case.

Also oddly enough, the fact that Bush has the audacity to do this sort of thing is the kind of thing that wins him admiration from those who still support him...they like the attitude. I guess I'm too much of a law-and-order guy to be comfortable with it.

MD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom