DescentBB

CLICKY

Well it seems there's a lot of method in the Dubya madness. It is stunning what congress lets him get away with.

Actually it isn't stunning anymore, it became the norm for Bush to do this kind of stuff.

Would you be interested to know Mobi that the Detroit Federal Judge who ruling that \"Bush's\" wire tapping of foreign phones is illegal, was in turn put on hold by the 6th circuit with every evidence the 6th will overturn it. Every president (well except maybe Carter) has tried to protect and to expand presidential powers.

Dakatsu wrote:Actually it isn't stunning anymore, it became the norm for Bush to do this kind of stuff.

X2

And, once again, I say how I'm soo glad that I'm living in Ireland.

"the Bush administration using signing statements as a means to slowly condition Congress into accepting the White House's broad conception of presidential power, which includes a presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional."

hmm, so not only is Congress being conditioned (see above), but the American populace is being conditioned for this purpose too. Quite successfully by the looks of this statement:

Dakatsu wrote:Actually it isn't stunning anymore, it became the norm for Bush to do this kind of stuff.

At that hearing in June, Michelle Boardman , an administration lawyer, defended the legality of signing statements. She said statements are necessary because Congress often bundles many different laws into a single bill, making it impractical to veto the entire package because some parts are flawed.

a good place to start, and this will fix a lot of things, is for congress to move an amendment to make bills that cover multiple topics unconstitutional. Once thats done, then people can start challenging the White House and the Congress without needing a lawyer to walk through the maze of legalese before bills get passed.

It will also close off the single most abused avenue that the White House has been using in trying to expand its power.

fliptw wrote:...a good place to start, and this will fix a lot of things, is for congress to move an amendment to make bills that cover multiple topics unconstitutional.....

Amen! I'd rather see that than a line item veto but either would be an improvement. I prefer the one issue-one bill approach.

As to the president ignoring laws that are unconstitutional, obviously if his interpretation of what is unconstitutional is off then there is room for criticism, but in cases where he's correct he should be praised! An officer in the army is taught he should refuse an unlawful order from a superior. And we herald the bravery of those, who in the past, stood up against injustice even when the law allowed the injustice...
So in cases where Bush is defying them and making the congress answer to the superior courts and his defiance of congress is upheld, then the criticism is unwarranted.

Another thing is signing statements should be made unconstitutional.

Ferno wrote:Another thing is signing statements should be made unconstitutional.

Thats a bit like a band-aid for a bite from a rabid animal.

its like adding a line baring gay marriage, re-introducing the death penalty, and making being a member of the Communist Party a capital offense to a bill that grants free post-secondary education in Canada. Thats what the US has been dealing with its entire history.

Baring a constitutional crisis, that bill will get signed into law, and the Supreme Court of Canada will toss out the unconstitutional bits out pretty quickly, but in the US, the President isn't obligated to simply sign off on bills passed by congress, he can send it back or veto it entirely, but eventually congress can override him if he vetos or sends back the bill.

So, he's in a bit of dilemma, does he risk congress forcing a bill into law that doesn't include the free post-secondary, or does he sign it, and not enforce the bad bits and wait for someone to challenge the bill in the courts, a process that can take years to even reach the US Supreme Court? Forcing Congress to pass single-topic bills will go a long way for making better dialog between Congress and the Presidency.

At least Bush is being open about what he is not willing to enforce.