Bush the dictator, signing statements haunt the US

[evince]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/wa...ll&oref=slogin

This fucker needs to go to prison.


In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.

The sections “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations,” including as commander in chief, Mr. Bush wrote.

In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.

One section gives the inspectors general a right to counsels who report directly to them. But Mr. Bush wrote in his signing statement that such lawyers would be bound to follow the legal interpretations of the politically appointed counsels at each agency.

The other section requires the White House to tell Congress what each inspector general said about the administration’s budget proposal for their offices. Such a requirement, Mr. Bush wrote, would infringe on “the president’s constitutional authority” to decide what to recommend to Congress.

[Sir Galahad]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/wa...ll&oref=slogin

This fucker needs to go to prison.


In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.

The sections “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations,” including as commander in chief, Mr. Bush wrote.

In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.

One section gives the inspectors general a right to counsels who report directly to them. But Mr. Bush wrote in his signing statement that such lawyers would be bound to follow the legal interpretations of the politically appointed counsels at each agency.

The other section requires the White House to tell Congress what each inspector general said about the administration’s budget proposal for their offices. Such a requirement, Mr. Bush wrote, would infringe on “the president’s constitutional authority” to decide what to recommend to Congress.

He needed to go to prison before he was even elected as President the first time in 2000. But who ever listens to me?

[uscitizen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/wa...ll&oref=slogin

This fucker needs to go to prison.


In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.

The sections “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations,” including as commander in chief, Mr. Bush wrote.

In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.

One section gives the inspectors general a right to counsels who report directly to them. But Mr. Bush wrote in his signing statement that such lawyers would be bound to follow the legal interpretations of the politically appointed counsels at each agency.

The other section requires the White House to tell Congress what each inspector general said about the administration’s budget proposal for their offices. Such a requirement, Mr. Bush wrote, would infringe on “the president’s constitutional authority” to decide what to recommend to Congress.

I wonder what Obama will do with all this power the republicans have bestowed on the WH ?

I can't wait till they whine about any Obama signing statements. Or not wanting to turn over visitors logs, etc.... I hope he does a couple of signing statements just to piss em off.
Maybe a reverse earmark kind of thing for something republicans want. And was put into a bill to get it thru congress. Then Obama signs it out of the bill

[evince]

He better not use them to make law or Ill be after his ass.

He needs to denounce them and make it clear the President does not have the legal standing to edit laws like this.

[uscitizen]

He better not use them to make law or Ill be after his ass.

He needs to denounce them and make it clear the President does not have the legal standing to edit laws like this.

I agree, but it would be nice to use the republicans tools against them. They squeal so nicely when someone does that.

[SmarterthanYou]

quit whining about 'signing statements'. Everyone had an opportunity to slam Bush and impeach him for breaking the laws and violating the constitution by demanding their reps do it. If they did demand and their reps didn't do it, you should have voted them out. By continually voting for your favored party instead of for your favored country, you unwittingly told them that you condone signing statements to bills becoming law. On top of that, the first signing statement that Obama does, every flipping partisan democrat hack on here will say it was necessary because congress sent him an illegal bill or some stupid shit.

[uscitizen]

quit whining about 'signing statements'. Everyone had an opportunity to slam Bush and impeach him for breaking the laws and violating the constitution by demanding their reps do it. If they did demand and their reps didn't do it, you should have voted them out. By continually voting for your favored party instead of for your favored country, you unwittingly told them that you condone signing statements to bills becoming law. On top of that, the first signing statement that Obama does, every flipping partisan democrat hack on here will say it was necessary because congress sent him an illegal bill or some stupid shit.

Some of us were smart enough not to vote for him even once. How many times did you vote for Bush ?

[SmarterthanYou]

Some of us were smart enough not to vote for him even once. How many times did you vote for Bush ?

voted for him in 2000. regretted it ever since. I vote third party all the way now. Fuck the two major parties, bunch of lying hacks and thieves.

[evince]

quit whining about 'signing statements'. Everyone had an opportunity to slam Bush and impeach him for breaking the laws and violating the constitution by demanding their reps do it. If they did demand and their reps didn't do it, you should have voted them out. By continually voting for your favored party instead of for your favored country, you unwittingly told them that you condone signing statements to bills becoming law. On top of that, the first signing statement that Obama does, every flipping partisan democrat hack on here will say it was necessary because congress sent him an illegal bill or some stupid shit.

Signing statements are not illegal.

Using signing statements to make or change laws is.

Lets just get that straight.

I sure the fuck will not sit back and let Obama or anyone use them to make law.

Oh BTW fuck off.

[uscitizen]

Yep signing statements are opinions and have no legal impact on the law or it's implementation.
That is per the constitution.

[SmarterthanYou]

and in any of bush's signing statements, has an action precipitated by him been a violation of law?

[evince]

Go read the provided like smarterthanpoo

[uscitizen]

and in any of bush's signing statements, has an action precipitated by him been a violation of law?

Good question. Off the cuff I would say yes.

[SmarterthanYou]

Good question. Off the cuff I would say yes.

then why haven't the congress flunkies impeached him? don't know?

here is a clue - it's so they can use it when they take the white house.

hooray, we're all fucked.

[uscitizen]

then why haven't the congress flunkies impeached him? don't know?

here is a clue - it's so they can use it when they take the white house.

hooray, we're all fucked.

Umm 2 reasons. Not a 2/3 majority of dems and many dems suck as bad as the rebutlickens to.