At 807 rejected Congessional provisions GWB beats all past Presidents combined by 200

[multi]

As of July 11, President George W. Bush had said no (or, not unless I want to) to 807 provisions enacted by Congress that he signed into law, according to Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio.

That number compares to some 600 provisions challenged by all of Bush's predecessors combined, says Kelley.

LINK

[theknife]

Originally Posted by multi

LINK

the American Bar Association, hardly a collection of lefties, just issued a report on this very subject:

American Bar Association denounces Bush's signing statements
By Mark Silva

Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - President Bush has vetoed only one piece of legislation during more than five years in office, but he has issued more than 800 challenges to bills that he has signed into law with formal "signing statements," more than all of his predecessors combined.

Now, however, a task force of the American Bar Association has concluded that the president's unprecedented stream of signing statements poses a dangerous challenge to the constitutional checks and balances central to power in the United States. One of the signing statements reserves the right to torture detainees held in the war on terror.

The ABA report, to be released Monday, calls on Congress to exert more oversight and empower the courts to review presidential signing statements asserting the president's right to "ignore or not enforce laws." If unchecked, ABA President Michael Greco said in a prepared statement, the presidential use of signing statements "raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy."

while there is lots of precedence for signing statements from other presidents, none have exercised this to the extent that Bush has:

The ABA report disputes the White House's contention that signing statements are issued carefully. Bush's are "ritualistic, mechanical and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation," the task force found. It noted that when Congress enacted a law requiring the attorney general to report on instances of officials refraining from carrying out law, the president attached a signing statement insisting on authority to withhold information.

basically, the Prez asserts the right to ignore the laws that Congress passes. they're not too keen on that whole "checks and balances" thing over at the White House.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/15106725.htm

[Mazer]

If they want they can try to impeach him, but what are the chances of that happening over signing statements? As far as I know it's still constitutional for the president to speak his mind.

[JackSpratts]

speaking is mind? he's ignoring laws he's sworn to enforce. bit different isn't it. if a citizen can't do this, in a democracy an elected official sure as hell shouldn't be able to. either that or we all legally get to pick and choose the ones we want to obey.

- js.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

if a citizen can't do this, in a democracy an elected official sure as hell shouldn't be able to. - js.

***Cough*** Republic ***Cough***




Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition --according to the CIA World fact Book

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/us.html


or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

speaking is mind? he's ignoring laws he's sworn to enforce. bit different isn't it.

When and if those words precipitate unlawful action on the president's part then I'll be worried. Until then he's protected by the same freedom of speech that every American enjoys.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

When and if those words precipitate unlawful action on the president's part then I'll be worried. Until then he's protected by the same freedom of speech that every American enjoys.

by unilaterally declaring his intention to disregard provisions of a bill legally passed by Congress, the President is in effect vetoing laws in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution.

"When the president signs a bill and says he is not going to enforce parts of a bill that he finds unconstitutional, it is in effect an absolute veto, because the Congress has no power to override him," said Bruce Fein, a Washington lawyer and member of the ABA task force who served in the Reagan administration and drafted signing statements for Reagan.

there's a system of checks and balances in our government - Congress passes a law and if the Prez doesn't like it, he vetos it. signing statements as used by Bush are unilateral assertions of intent to disregard the law as it was passed.

if you think this is about free speech, then you don't grasp the issue....and ironically enough, if the President's signing statements precipitate illegal actions, you'll never know about it because in many cases, the signing statement is an assertion by the Executive branch that they can disregard the reporting requirements contained within.

While the White House has asserted that it only expresses reservations, the ABA has cited examples in which the White House has indicated its intentions not to follow provisions in:

_Two bills forbidding use of military intelligence in materials "not lawfully collected."

_A bill requiring a report to Congress on the use of the USA Patriot Act to secretly search homes or seize private papers.

_The "McCain amendment" forbidding any U.S. official from torturing a prisoner. While the administration insists it does not condone torture, the president's signing statement in December reserved the right to waive the torture ban if harsh interrogation might advance anti-terrorism efforts.

_The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 requiring regular reports to Congress. The signing statement on intelligence reports to Congress called the requirement "advisory" and asserted that it "would be construed in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to withhold information" that could impair foreign relations or national security if released.

essentially, the administration uses signing statements to claim they can do what they want, any time they choose, regardless of the law.

[Mazer]

The difference, of course, is that the next president is not obligated to uphold Bush's signing statements. I agree that he should be vetoing bills rather than stating his intention not to enforce them, but a) there's still the opportuniny for the Supreme Court to do a judicial review and b) because he doens't veto these bills, they will outlast his term. No president can override the system of checks and balances, knife. If a loophole that allowed presidents to rule over the other two branches of government actually existed it would have been exploited ages ago.

[multi]

Originally Posted by theknife

the American Bar Association, hardly a collection of lefties, just issued a report on this very subject:

The Onion (probably a collection of lefties) also just issued a report on this subject:
Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self

[pisser]

What? No reply by Albed yet?

A new record.

[albed]

As bored as I am I still find certain threads too lame to bother with.

[multi]

come on you could at least try and take it off topic..

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

As bored as I am I still find certain threads too lame to bother with.

Please rephrase.
Example:

"As boring as I am I still find certain threads too lame to bother with."

Now that sounds more realistic.

[Nicobie]

[quote=theknife]the American Bar Association, hardly a collection of lefties...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaaa

U crack me up.
ever