not bashing, just questioning

[nostatic]

So is this story BS, or is GWB overstepping the proper reach of the executive branch?

excerpt from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=2


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.

[tabs]

Defacto Line Item Veto....

Clinton NEVER got anything through Congress..yet his tool was the Executive Order...he could order the Bureaucracy to tighten up on the sections of the Law he wanted and play loose with others...

[techweenie]

Originally posted by nostatic
So is this story BS, or is GWB overstepping the proper reach of the executive branch?

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.

This story has been struggling for traction for months. People don't seem to care at all that in 'signing statements' the very nature of the law being signed is ignored. There have been many posts here on OT about this.

This administration has taken the position that the executive is above the other branches of government. Several SC Justices have echoed the notion that the executive has extraordinary power over the legislative branch.

What's mind-boggling is that supporters of this behavior seem completely unable to comprehend the fact that the next president will have the precedent to use signing statements in this way, and that president may well have a different political bent.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by techweenie
What's mind-boggling is that supporters of this behavior seem completely unable to comprehend the fact that the next president will have the precedent to use signing statements in this way, and that president may well have a different political bent.

Diebold will ensure that does not happen.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by widebody911
Diebold will ensure that does not happen.

Some Conspiracy Theorists believe that the 2008 election will be suspended altogether due to a 'national crisis' of some sort.

[legion]

We need to reign in the power of all three branches of government, not just any one.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by widebody911
Diebold will ensure that does not happen.

Lets not forget whose bright idea it was to go electronic. Liberals. They needed to keep their butterfly ballot lie (to prop up the "Gore won" mythology) alive and so they pushed for "reform." Round #2, Kerry v. Bush; this lie required blaming Diebold for Kerry's incompetence and inability to win the election.

What is new? It seems every liberal solution creates a bigger problem. Another great example of this theory, Ted Kennedy's baby, HMOs.

[Jim Richards]

asking mul not to bash is harder than asking him not to breathe.

[tabs]

Originally posted by techweenie
Some Conspiracy Theorists believe that the 2008 election will be suspended altogether due to a 'national crisis' of some sort.

What exacxtly have I bin telling U boyz....2000 an Gores challenge was Strike One...Kerry mch to his credit called off Strike 2....after 3 strikes your out...

Abe lincoln much to his credit held the 1864 Presidential Election..fully expecting to lose...if MCclellan had won everything Lincoln had done to preserve the Union ...all those lives would be for naught..for McClellan would have made Peace with the Confederacy.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
What exacxtly have I bin telling U boyz....2000 an Gores challenge was Strike One...Kerry mch to his credit called off Strike 2....after 3 strikes your out...

Abe lincoln much to his credit held the 1864 Presidential Election..fully expecting to lose...if MCclellan had won everything Lincoln had done to preserve the Union ...all those lives would be for naught..for McClellan would have made Peace with the Confederacy.

Lincoln stole the 1864 election, a fact that's rather easily proved.

McClellan would likely have sued for peace, he was an advocate of Constitutional government, Lincoln, as we know, was an enemy of lawful government.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by fastpat
Lincoln stole the 1864 election, a fact that's rather easily proved.

McClellan would likely have sued for peace, he was an advocate of Constitutional government, Lincoln, as we know, was an enemy of lawful government.

Sore loser!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Sore loser!

Everyone lost in the war Lincoln waged against America.

It's too bad J. W. Booth wasn't successful two years earlier than he was.

[greglepore]

Heard this story on NPR yesterday. I have to admit, its work of genius on the part of some lawyer types-sign the bill, then order that it not be enforced in whole or part. A veto, with no risk of overide, and most in the public and even Congress don't even know it.

Unconstitutional? Yeah, I think so. Brilliant, yes, in an evil sort of way.

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
We need to reign in the power of all three branches of government, not just any one.

Well there's a good idea. Just make it more difficult for gubmit to do its job. Besides restricting their authority, let's also throttle their budgets too. Who needs protection from sex offenders? Not our kids, right? Who needs driveable highways? Nope, not us. Welfare?......let them learn to steal for a living instead of living on my taxes.

When I'm away from this Forum, I forget how easy it is to solve the problems that others consider so complex.

[Superman]

Originally posted by greglepore
Heard this story on NPR yesterday. I have to admit, its work of genius on the part of some lawyer types-sign the bill, then order that it not be enforced in whole or part. A veto, with no risk of overide, and most in the public and even Congress don't even know it.

Unconstitutional? Yeah, I think so. Brilliant, yes, in an evil sort of way.

That's not a new trick. Whether an administration is liberal or conservative, new laws are passed to appease the libs......and then the funding never happens, which pleases the cons. See? Everybody's happy.

Pat, you're not impressing people with your Lincoln-bashing. Might as well bash Jesus Christ and Gandhi. In any of these cases, you appear to be........out there.

[red-beard]

I prefer to protect my own kids, thank-you very much.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Sore loser!

ROTFLMAO!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Well there's a good idea. Just make it more difficult for gubmit to do its job. Besides restricting their authority, let's also throttle their budgets too. Who needs protection from sex offenders? Not our kids, right? Who needs driveable highways? Nope, not us. Welfare?......let them learn to steal for a living instead of living on my taxes.

Government isn't required for, nor desireable for, any of those things.

The key question is, what makes you think government is required for them?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Pat, you're not impressing people with your Lincoln-bashing. Might as well bash Jesus Christ and Gandhi. In any of these cases, you appear to be........out there.

Telling the truth about the worst president in US history isn't bashing, it's edifying.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JanusCole
A good friend of mine has been worried about this since 2000. But think I made him feel better when I pointed out that Bush's 32% approval rating has made him nearly completely impotent. Have you noticed that almost everything he says has been comepletely ignored? Reform Social Security? Um...no thanks....Put his friend Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court? No way...Legalize torture? Sen McCain has other ideas...He tells the Iraqi's to get along and they just keep bombing each other...He proposes an immigration plan and both sides of the aisle dismiss it...and still his poll numbers fall...

The point is that fascists HATE being belittled and ignored. So if you believe Bush is enough of a fascist to suspend the 2008 election, then you also have to assume his current impotency is driving him INSANE and he'd want nothing better than to get the f*ck out of the White House.

I don't give much credence to stopping elections, but it's not impossible. There were many that discussed the risk of Clinton doing the same thing in 2000, as you noted.

That said, I don't call Bush stupid like some do, there's ample evidence of organic brain syndrome; as well as paranoid delusions, neither of which imply stupidity.