Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
Article Tools

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
(snip)


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/


So why do we even have a congress...

[wakeme2008]

1. So why do we even have a congress... We don't have one....

The Repugs knew that what Bush was going to do after the McCain torture bill passed and Bush said piss on that.

[liberal N proud]

4. Congress is there to provide the illusion of a democratic government for >

those who still believe that we are governed by the people.

[Nothing Without Hope]

99. Exactly. I gave a couple of apropos quotes in Reply #98. It's been

a ploy used over and over through history, as pointed out by James Madison and others.

[Ravachol]

142. That's probably what they meant

when they were saying "smaller government". Keep all the bureaucracy, even create huge new agencies... but close the Senate and the Congress.

:D

Anyway, all these guys sittin' on a bench, playing in a show named illusion of democracy... I mean, it's boring for them. They could be sitting in an office at the head of a minor agency like FEMA, for example. Now that would be productive.

[frylock]

154. fuckin-a

[dusty64]

13. Exactly, this

government is an unfunny joke. They might as well as go home and become full time lobbyists, think of the money that would be saved and all the bad laws that wouldn't get passed.

[Frank Cannon]

35. Think of the money we'd save by closing Congress and firing them all

They are all as useless now as tits on a boar.

And when the fuck did it become the President's job to "interpret" laws? I thought we had a Supreme Court for that.

I don't know why I spent all that time studying the Constitution in government class in high school. If I'd known a dictator was eventually going to make it a worthless piece of parchment, I wouldn't have bothered.

[wordpix2]

62. why does Congress allow these dick-tatorial signing statements at all?

Are they legal? Of course, Gonzo would say yes.

[Virginian]

65. Isn't this the same as giving himself the line item veto?

That has been debated for as long as I can remember. I didn't know a president could just do it without congress giving him the privilege of doing it.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

70. Ding. Exactly

[donkeyotay]

143. Yes, what did he need the line item veto for

if he can already do as he pleases?

He needs to be impeached. He is a dangerous and stupid man, and I wonder how many more months I can say that and stay out of Camp Halliburton.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's what you swore to do - not make us safe, pay back your base or restore some neocon dream of grandeur to the office. You swore you'd preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

[wordpix2]

210. He not only wants line item veto, he wants line item addendums

[TankLV]

235. One word: REPUKES.

The repukes only control 3 branches of government, so it's all the DEMOCRATS fault, don't you see?!

[donkeyotay]

237. I do see. It is all the liberals, the leftists and the dems fault

We were right about not wanting an incompetent drinking buddy for president. We were right about the perils of a GOP controlled media. We were right about a better response to 9-11. We were right about bush lying for a disastrous war. We were right about the dangers of hollowing out our economy for so-called free trade. We were right about global warming. We were right about the evils of letting corporations bribe our representatives.

We were right, and they derided us, demonized us, walked over us and got what they wanted. Now they are reaping what they sowed and it's all our fault.

Anyone else notice how suddenly immigration is going to be what we talk about - instead of all of the above - this election year?

[katty]

80. here!here! I'm for that! stop the show, just go home!

[Wise Doubter]

177. Not to be a cheney(dick), but it`s Hear Hear

The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"


Of course, if the speaker is actually asking a question, such as "and just where do you think we should open the new strip club?" it's not hard to imagine that at least one yahoo in attendance might yell, "here, here!" But this would be the exception that proves the rule.

[PegDAC]

132. I haven't seen/heard that phrase since my father died. n/t

[Frank Cannon]

158. Well, I'm glad to bring back those great memories!

:toast: :hi:

[Voltaire99]

205. "I don't know why I spent all that time studying the Constitution"

Nor do I.

Belief in constitutional government was a comforting fiction when I was younger. Professionally, I even helped to advance that fiction for many years.

Clearly, the system has proved to be far more malleable--and much less a bulwark against tyranny--than its eager-beaver proponents have always claimed.

The bottom line: our system can not function when run by worms. Without an opposition worthy of the name, even a dull-witted tyrant can be king.

[LeftHander]

71. TREASON TREASON TREASON!!

GODDAMNIT!!

Stop this powergrabbing despot....he is DESTROYING our CONSTITUTION!!

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[radfringe]

191. if bush was born during the time of the signing of

Declaration of Independence and Constitution - he would have signed it and then exempted himself

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acmavm]

2. If the members of both houses don't stand up and tell the traitors in

the bush** administration that this is not acceptable, then we are doomed.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. probability of that happening: 0.00000000000000000001

try buying a lottery ticket instead. You'll have better luck.

[napi21]

3. What is this signing bills into law WITH AN EXCLUSION CLAUSE?

I heard someone on TV say that these little addons have been used by other Presidents, but this one has used the MOST of any other ones in the past.

I never heard of this kind of foolishness!

I question why there even is a veto? Why bother.

How can we find out what all the other addendums are?

[RC]

5. You can't find out what the addendum are.

They are classified on a need to know basis.

[rodeodance]

91. yes. you can. They are the 'signing statements"--Published on WH website.

[salin]

8. If he finds a part objectionable, then he should use his constitutional

power of VETO. I think that over time that public awareness of bush's signing statements - and how are used to attempt to change the law (and thus take constitutional powers away from Congress) - and will have serious blowback for bushco.

[rodeodance]

28. by inserting his signing statement, he CHANGES the law Congress just passe

d.

[fooj]

109. No. The sneaky, filthy, treasonous, rat bastard would rather

use these fricking "signing statements"...under the radar, so to speak.

Peace.

[wordpix2]

211. it's clear * doesn't like to tell Congress he's planning a signing state-

ment. They MIGHT get upset---at least a few of them like Russ Feingold

[many a good man]

36. Presidential signing statements

...were used some 70 times prior to bush, usually to express the executive's interpretation of some vague legislation. bush alone has issued over 200 and you're right, he's the only one who uses it to announce he will ignore explicit sections.

bush is claiming executive powers that have never been tested before in Court.

If someone would challenge him it would be the greatest Constitutional showdown in history.

He argues that we're in a national state of emergency so he requires wartime powers. These powers include setting aside Congress and the Courts.

Its like if Truman declared martial law at the start of the Cold War and the executive ruled without oversight for forty years.

[rodeodance]

49. but with this SC--I am not sure I want his powers codified!!

[wordpix2]

212. Great graphic! Here's what Constitution & Wikipedia say:

Yes, this is a new thing, using the signing statement/line item veto to eliminate or add what he doesn't want. I don't remember any pres doing this, ever, even Nixon.

IMO, this is unConstitutional. Here's what Constitution states:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto
snip:
The veto power in the United States Constitution was derived from the British method of Royal Assent. On April 5, 1792 President George Washington vetoed a bill designed to apportion representatives among the several states. This is the first time the presidential veto was used in the United States. The Congress first overrode a presidential veto on March 3, 1845.

snip:Line-item veto
Typically, a veto applies to an entire piece of legislation. Some states in the United States have granted their governors the additional power of a line-item veto. This allows them to veto or "cross out" only certain parts of the legislation, while allowing the rest to pass. Although details vary, it is not uncommon for a piece of legislation that has undergone a line item veto to be returned to the legislative body for final approval; they can either accept the amended legislation or decide not to pass it at all in its new form. The line item veto power has been controversial. Perhaps its most famous abuse was when Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, crossed out individual letters in a bill so that the remaining words comprised entirely different sentences, effectively introducing a new provision into the bill. Some states permit line item vetoes only in "appropriation bills," or bills granting money for the various government departments. The United States Congress passed a law authorizing the President to strike out up to three items of appropriation in a single bill, but the Supreme Court ruled this procedure unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998).

[rodeodance]

68. it is beyond foolishness!

[napi21]

79. I know. I thought about what word I wanted to use in that sentence.

Many came to mind, and I opted not to be my normal rotten self this morning when I chose that word.

[wordpix2]

213. according to info in post 212, line item veto has been used in some states

with controversial results

[Solly Mack]

6. Bush has marginalized Congress - members of Congress can either

1 - Stand up to him and reclaim the balance of power and act as the watchdog over the executive, which is their duty to do.

or

2 - They are complicit in allowing the executive branch to become the office of a dictator, with Congress as little more than obedient minions, jockeying to do the king's bidding.

No one in Congress can have it both ways.
There is no compromising with Bush.

[rodeodance]

24. seems like the majority of Congress does not care.

[Solly Mack]

33. I would wager that a good many don't care

As long as they aren't affected by the laws they pass, and as long as they can make their living on the backs of the citizens, they don't care what the status quo is in government, as long as they get to maintain theirs.

Real easy for those receiving citizen funded healthcare and trips at the people's expense to talk about budget cuts and sacrifice. Voting themselves pay raises while jobs are scarce, bills are high, and a war of lies is helping to bankrupt the nation.

Real easy for those not doing the dying to send others off to die. Flowery speech about god and country fall all too readily off the lips of those secure in the knowledge that they will never be asked to die for a lie.

[KansDem]

59. And their retirement benefits are nothing to sneeze at...

Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress

Check out the "Age and Length-of-Service Requirements" (page 3)

But then you've got to offer the best to attract the brightest...:spray:

Beats working for a living!

[Solly Mack]

61. "But then you've got to offer the best to attract the brightest"

I snorted coffee up my nose reading that

lolololololol...oh, it stings

[Blutodog]

118. Exactly right!

The people that are supposed to represent us do nothing of the kind. Most of them only care about themselves and the Corps. that fund them. Democracy has been a cruel hoax in this country for a very long time. It's time we come to grips with the facts of our true situation. Were essentially on our own. If we want our country it's up to us to find some way to take it back and frankly I don't think enough Americans even care enough about any of this to bother.

[wordpix2]

214. I agree, where is Congress and why aren't they doing their jobs?

[leftchick]

7. who the fuck made him king?

every stinking member of congress should be ashamed of themselves....

except Russ...

<snip>

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

[The Deacon]

76. The Supreme Court

In 2000, remember?

[donkeyotay]

144. Ha ha! Good point. The supremes made him king in 2000, or should I say

Unitary Executive. LONG LIVE THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE.

[PegDAC]

134. To Russ Feingold,

I'd add John Conyers.
:patriot:

[truthisfreedom]

9. this will be the LAST time he uses his "dictator" power.

he's gone over the line.

[rodeodance]

22. see remaining article--it was not even noticed till now!

[Warren Stupidity]

39. That is not true.

We noticed it right here on DU and across the progressive blognation when he pulled the same busholini stunt with McCain's anti-torture law. The regime is an executive dictatorship and our Opposition Party, with few exceptions, has been complicit in the silent coup d'etat that occurred after 9-11.

[rodeodance]

92. I mean the 'mainstream' media/press. And the article points this out also

[Blutodog]

115. Ur very wrong

I'm sorry to tell u this Amigo but it's just the start of what this man and his gang intend to do. You aren't going to like what's next. Halliburton is building Detention Camps as I wrote for hundreds of thousands of people. Take a guess who those people are. That's right "enemies of the Preznit." AG Gonzo was out 2 weeks ago railing against a 5th column of traitors and how they are going to taken care of. Nobody reported much of it in the MSM but whose surprised. the round ups will start right after they steal this falls elections.

[ekelly]

209. I hear ya..........

My son knows that if anyone comes to the house stating that he needs to be "tested for bird flu",(or any other equally ridiculous statement) he better run as fast as he can.
I have a feeling that's what they will use to detain people. Lots of people would fall for it out of fear.
Just watch....as soon as cases of bird flu are found in the US, it will magically mutate into human-to-human transmission, and BINGO!, the fear machine will be crankin'.


Round 'em up!!!!!!!

[emald]

194. over the line was a long goddamned time ago

now it's just in your face law breaking and constitution trampling.

[fasttense]

10. He has declared himself King of the United States

and Congress has crowned him. This ridiculous unitary executive theory is nothing more than code for king. Congress has abdicated their authority and turned it over to the crazy king george.

[Blutodog]

117. That's right So?

So what are u and the rest of us going to do about it? Nothing except sit in front of our computers and increase our file in the NSA among other Intel computers. This man is just the tip of an enormous effort to destroy what's left of the Constitution and the the Republic and replace it with a Fascist police/Security State with a Dictatorship at it's top. The Congress will be left as a "window dressing." This is how Rome once died as well. The Senate handed Caesar "total power." I'm afraid there is probably no going back and no way to counter these thugs short of open revolt. Since they have all the power military and economic and no real opposition I guess u could say were FUCKED!

[wordpix2]

215. I send/phone our DU info to media & my congresspeople so they know

what's going on and how I view the issues. Of course, Lieberbush is one of my senators and Nancy Pharma Johnson is my House rep. They support my views very little, although Lieberman is good on environmental issues.

Another way I contribute is to help a good candidate. I'm helping with outreach for both the Dem candidate for governor and Chris Murphy, Dem running against Corporate-ho Johnson. I'm holding a house party for Murphy.

These are just a a few things people can do when they're outraged by something they read here. Not everyone is just sitting at the computer.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. The President is constitutionally bound to execute the law that Congress

enacts. He is skating on thin ice. He must want to see how far he can push the envelope.

[Memory Container]

14. He'll keep pushing.

And he'll do it in little chunks like this with the MSM breathing nary a word over it. Americans are oblivious, and when you try to tell them, they assume you're nuts 'because he's the President, he must know what he's doing...'

"Yeah buddy, he's making himself a dictator."

-I'm very concerned that if the Republicans steal another election and put someone who at least looks more competent in the WH, then the fight will get that much harder.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Welcome to DU, MC. 'Fraid you're right.

OTOH, it's gonna be tough to find someone who is so malleable, so morally corrupt, so dependent as *. His ability follow orders is without precedence. Even Jeb (who will be looking for something to do after next year) has a modicum of independence that could be a problem for the RNC who really want a puppet.

[flyarm]

106. try jeb!..yes they are already doing polling for jebbie boy he is king pin

of corruption!

fly

[LibDemAlways]

116. You're right. The shit he pulls is so outrageous

that when you mention it to people, they think you've gone off the deep end. I've actually had people say to me, "If that's true, why haven't I heard it on the news?" When I try to explain that the "news" doesn't exist except as government propaganda and that very little unfavoarble to the chimp is allowed to filter through, they just gloss over. Educating people who've been spoonfed a diet of repuke talking points is tough.

Welcome to DU!!

[rodeodance]

31. Leahy is on this (as of yesterday).

....The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language" that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required."

''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."

[donkeyotay]

146. Translation

''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in the manner he see fit that is consistent with the theory of the Unitary Executive," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed, but not cooperated with, at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has never been enough information for a verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."

[wordpix2]

216. "there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties"--huh? There

are a number of people who have come forward alone or to the ACLU to get information about suspected spying on them by gov.

Then there are the abuses of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib that might not pertain to the Patriot Act but certainly do pertain to the international Geneva Convention agreement.

And finally, we have the Wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, esp. the latter that BushCo started with their LIES to Congress and the citizens of US.

But Congress will continue to sleep until we throw the bums out!

[atreides1]

42. He'll keep pushing

Because he knows that the Repukes believe in what he's doing and the majority of the Dems don't have the guts to say anything, most of the time.

He has nothing to be concerned about, Congress are his little puppets!!!!!

[emald]

195. what "thin ice" do you refer to?

No one has stopped him. He is still doing just as he pleases, or as his handlers suggest to him. He is a stupid, vapid, war mongering illiterate little man with no thoughts of his own. He is a tool. There is no thin ice here, he is on very strong ground and our beloved country has been destroyed. done.

[greekspeak]

12. When did the constitution change to include presidential addenda on law?

All the man has to do is add an adendum to the constitution saying "null and void." Aw fuck, he already has pretty much done that. Constitution? Ha. A dirty old rag for ass wiping. I would like to add an addendum to him that says "impeached, convicted, jailed."

[rodeodance]

29. Here, read this.

.....Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.

Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.

[webtrainer]

97. hello Democratic Senators . . .

how does this suit you? You wanna re-think that idea to at least censure...???

[greekspeak]

108. Joementum et al wooses up there will still rush to fellate Shrubikins

I am about fed up with Nelson here in Florida, and the other Nelson in Nebraska, Holy Joe, Bayh, Biden and all the other "democons" that keep fucking us all over. Corporate whore democons can go out with the Puke machine in November, far as I am concerned.

[wordpix2]

223. hahahaha, very funny but ewww

[rodeodance]

15. As Feingold says--Congress makes the laws. umm...

......So why do we even have a congress...

[rodeodance]

16. more: 'his constitutional authority-----

.....Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.

And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.

[donkeyotay]

152. Has Congress noticed yet that bush can snatch anyone he wants

up off the streets, hold them without notifying their loved ones, without bringing charges, without providing legal counsel, can TORTURE them, and can keep them locked away for the rest or their lives... or with the same logic, have them executed... and the only applicable standard of law is if he thinks it's best.

And Congress doesn't have a problem with this.
Wow. Unbelievable. I guess 9-11 did change everything.

[wordpix2]

217. who came up with this "unitary executive" theory in the first place? Rove?

[rodeodance]

18. says this new act by Bush went unnoticed -unReported! till now.

......Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.

[rodeodance]

19. Sen. Leahy has a comment here:

.......Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said.

Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act -- provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -- represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."

''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."

[wordpix2]

218. let'ssee what the little Congress'l pukes have to say re: * ignoring their

law---will they stand up to him for the second time in their lives (the first being, Dubai Ports)?

Can't wait to hear what Feingold has to say about THIS

[mmonk]

20. Is anyone as confused as I am

about how easy it has been for this administration to run a defacto dictatorship? Is it just money that has allowed the betrayal of the people? Anyway, I'm very very close to having enough. I know everyone says stay and fight but basically the people that are aware of reality are powerless.

[rodeodance]

25. feeling prettyless myself at this power grab-primarily cause I know few

in Congress will raise an eyebrow. That is the scary part.

[coalition_unwilling]

82. I hate to sound like Eugene Debs, but I'm beginning to think

only a citizens' general strike, aka, revolution, will stop this and restore constitutional rule.

[motocicleta]

135. I'm ready when you are. eom

[Ravachol]

183. Revolution! Revolution!

Hell. It's about time some people realizes that we - "western world" - don't live in democracies but in class-based dictatorships.

What you say is just the tip of the iceberg. They can go as far as they want and they know it. The only possible response to such an attitude is a general strike; nothing short of a revolution and I'd recommend an armed one 'cause I don't think they'll gladly give the power away.

Inform, mobilize, organize. Sedition: the only solution!

[wordpix2]

220. it could get to that point, I've thought of that, too

[wordpix2]

219. stop whining, help a good candidate, join marches, contact your reps

in Congress and the state, and in general, MAKE A BIG NOISE SO THEY HEAR YOU. :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

21. King george; tinpot dictator. Above all laws. Even his own.

Wake up quickly, America.

[Just Me]

23. The man has much to hide.

Evil dictator.

[rodeodance]

26. Ok people--lets DO something. Send this article to ALL your Senators NOW!

[rodeodance]

27. now--Please please please.

[rodeodance]

30. here, read this.

from the article:

Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said.

Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act -- provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -- represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."

''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."

[rodeodance]

86. "duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress,"

[rodeodance]

87. k

[PegDAC]

136. Wouldn't do a damn bit of good

to send it to DeMint and L. Graham. Nor to Henry Brown.

:puke:

[dad]

236. Nor to Burr and Dole.

It kinda sucks to have no representation that will even consider listening to ya. I doubt my comments to those two rubber stamps for Bush would even be read.

[rodeodance]

32. nominated

[Connie_Corleone]

34. Kicked and nominated

This better get news coverage!!

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

38. Signing statement text

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-8.html

"Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient."

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 9, 2006.

[slipslidingaway]

44. Alito and signing statements.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/010906a.html

Alito & the Point of No Return

"In 1986, Alito advanced this theory by proposing “interpretive signing statements” from presidents to counter the court’s traditional reliance on congressional intent in assessing the meaning of federal law. Under Bush, these “signing statements” have amounted to rejection of legal restrictions especially as they bear on presidential powers."

From the above article, the six page "plan" for increasing the use of presisential signing statements written in 1986 by Sam Alito.

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf



The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html



Sign Here
Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 2006, at 5:32 AM ET


"Should we dismiss these statements just because President Bush is so brazen in his claims? So willing to take legal positions that are undefended because they're legally indefensible? Will all this just go away someday, when a court dismisses these statements as excessive and unfounded? No. Because President Bush isn't trying to win this war in the courts. Thus far, he has faced each legal setback as though it never happened; or—more often—he's recast it as a victory. He doesn't care what the courts someday make of his signing statements, just as he didn't care what the courts made of his enemy-combatant claims. He views the courts as irrelevant in his pursuit of this war. These signing statements are dangerous because they repeat and normalize—always using seemingly boilerplate language—claims about the boundless powers of a "unitary executive." By questioning the principle of court review in the McCain statement, Bush again erodes the notion of judicial supremacy—an idea we have lived with since Marbury v. Madison. When he asserts that he—and not the courts—is the final arbiter of his constitutional powers, he is calling for a radical shift in the system of checks and balances.

It's so tempting to laugh off Bush's signing statements as puffed-up, groundless claims that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and also devastatingly handsome. But this is the president talking and instructing his subordinates—and also outlining a broad legal regime that may not technically be constitutional, but that hardly makes it laughable. These declarations promote a view of the law that may have no merit in the courts but may never have the chance to be resolved there in the first place."

http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/



Another article

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

[donkeyotay]

153. Oh yeah, I remember he ran on this platform in 2000 and in 2004

If you elect me, the Edumacation Preznit, I will declare myself the Unitary Executive and spy and torture and start wars I can't finish. I will bankrupt your country, steal your social security, leave your fellow citizens to die and rot in the street. You will marvel at my arrogance and incompetence, but I will squash under my police state.

Whatever happened to that allegedly likable guy you wanted to have a beer with and was "known to mangle a sylabble once in while?" He's turned into Hitler.

[wordpix2]

221. man, * is really into this "unitary exec. branch" thing---don't recall it

in the Constitution. snip:

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch....

snip: The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch..."

[Orsino]

40. Congress has already proven that it won't hold him accountable...

...which is tacit permission for him to do as he pleases. The signing statement is all the fig leaf he'll need, the next time he's caught violating the letter of the law. There'll be a lot of hand-wringing, a little more talk of impeachment, and nothing will come of it.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

41. I hereby refer you back to an aging post of mine

entitled "A presidency above the law IS A DICTATORSHIP".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x94431

[opihimoimoi]

43. Wow, who woulda thought..........

Over rules all .... the ultimate macro manager...

[rodeodance]

48. yes, Dicator-fits well.

[PSPS]

45. IT MUST BE FRIDAY!

[YankeyMCC]

46. Excellent observation n/t

[wordpix2]

222. it's now SUNDAY and this thread's still running---we're onto something...

[rodeodance]

47. ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power,~~~

Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.

But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.

[rodeodance]

50. as the article points out, this was done MARCH--went UNnoticed till now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-8.html

President's Statement on H.R. 199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

[eomer]

75. Here are some other signing statements:

President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from a potential influenza pandemic.

Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014, 8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law. Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

Certain provisions in the Act purport to allocate funds for specified purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers that accompanied the Act or other Acts; to make changes in statements of managers that accompanied various appropriations bills reported from conferences in the past; or to direct compliance with a committee report. Such provisions include section 8044 in Division A, and sections 5022, 5023, and 5024 and language under the heading "Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations" in Division B, of the Act. Other provisions of the Act, such as sections 8073 and 8082 in Division A, purport to give binding effect to legislative documents not presented to the President. The executive branch shall construe all these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 30, 2005.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

President's Statement on Signing the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005"

Today, I have signed into law S. 1932, the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005." The Act reduces unnecessary spending of taxpayer dollars, reflecting a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

The executive branch shall construe section 1936(d)(2) of the Social Security Act as enacted by section 6034 of the Act, which purports to make consultation with a legislative agent a precondition to execution of the law, to call for but not mandate such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

Sections 5006(b) and 5008(c) of the Act, and section 401A(a)(2)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as enacted by section 8003 of the Act, call for executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 8, 2006.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-10.html

President's Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005

Today I have signed into law H.R. 4613, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005." The bill provides funds to pursue the war on terror, advance other United States interests around the globe, and support our Armed Forces.

Sections 8007, 8011, and 8106 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8106 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe sections 8007, 8011, and 8106 in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Section 8064 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for FY 2005 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies 6 committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8064 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe section 8064 in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8036, 8041(b), 8110, and 8116 purport to specify the content of a portion of a future budget request to the Congress for the Department. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

Section 8005 of the Act relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

A proviso within the appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Air Force" earmarks funds for a grant to a college for the purpose of funding minority aviation training, a proviso within the appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" earmarks funds for a program for Asian American/Pacific Islander students, and sections 8014 and 8021 of the Act grant contracting-related exceptions or preferences to Native Hawaiian organizations. The executive branch shall implement the provisos and sections 8014 and 8021 in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

The executive branch shall construe section 8101 of the Act, which purports to prohibit alteration of command responsibility or permanent assignment of forces until 270 days after submission of a plan for such alteration to the congressional defense committees, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief. Also, the executive branch shall construe section 8124, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Finally, the Executive Branch shall construe section 12001, which purports to assign the Secretary of Defense the duty to negotiate with a foreign country, in a manner consistent with the President's constitu-tional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, which includes the authority to determine who shall negotiate for the United States under the President's direction with a foreign country.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

August 5, 2004.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-9.html

[rodeodance]

51. I have sent this article to my Senators and Representative--!

[RWBPatriot]

113. Sounds like a plan. I will too....

[wordpix2]

224. think I'll send it AGAIN

[sakabatou]

52. Bush breaks the law again

[sidpleasant]

53. If you think this is bad, here's something Bush did that's even worse

Last month Bush signed into law a bill that hadn't passed both houses of Congress! Details buried in the Washington Post here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101763.html

[rodeodance]

72. I read that Jr. was notified of this mistake but went ahead anyway.

[slipslidingaway]

54. This is an important link, see post #44 for the original article.

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

snip>

February 5, 1986

TO: The Litigation Strategy Working Group

FROM: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

SUBJ: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make
Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally
Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.

"At our last meeting, I was asked to draft a preliminary
proposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first effort in that direction.

[Kber]

55. Someone has GOT to challange the legality of these

"signing statements" while we still have 5 sane votes on the Supreme Court.

The executive branch does not have the constitutional power to create laws!

[OregonBlue]

56. Call the committee offices. Here are phone numbers and email addresses.

Tell them they are all liars. They gave us all those assurances about "oversite". The King has just flipped them the bird again and I'm sure they'll just roll over and take it. As far as I'm concerned, not one of them has the right to utter the word "democracy" since they obviously don't know the meaning of that word. They are not fit to govern. Throw all the bums out!!!

Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Contact Information


Committee Phone: (Thugs) 202-224-4751 (Dems)202-224-2627
Committee FAX: [phone]

Susan Collins, Chairman 202-224-2523, 202-224-2693
<http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.Email&CFID=31278970&CFTOKEN=44699849>

Ted Stevens (R-AK) 202-224-3004, 202-224-2354
<http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm>

George Voinovich (R-OH) 202-224-3353, 202-228-1382
<http://voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htm>

Norm Coleman (R-MN) 202-224-5641, 202-224-1152
<http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm>

Tom Coburn (R-OK) 202-224-5754, 202-224-6008 <http://coburn.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home>

Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) 202-224-2921, 202-228-2853 <http://chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm>

Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) 202-224-5444, 202-228-1168 <http://bennett.senate.gov/contact/email_opinion.cfm>

Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) 202-224-6621, 202-228-0900 <http://domenici.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfm>

John W. Warner (R-VA) 202-224-2023, 202-224-6295 <http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.htm>

Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) 202-224-4041, 202-224-9750 <http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue>

Carl Levin (D-MI) 202-224-6221, 202-224-1388 <http://levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm>

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) 202-224-6361, 202-224-2126 <http://akaka.senate.gov/email.cfm>

Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) 202-224-2441, 202-228-2190 <http://carper.senate.gov/aemail.htm>

Mark Dayton (D-MN) 202-224-3244, 202-228-2186 <http://dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm>

Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 202-224-3224, 202-228-4054 <http://lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html>

Mark Pryor (D-AR) 202-224-2353, 202-228-0908 <http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/>

[UpInArms]

57. I am sick to freakin' death of this usurping of powers by this mutant

that thinks he is a GD king and dictator.

:nuke:

[LeftHander]

58. Isn't a bill that is signed by prez....a LAW

[rodeodance]

95. logic would say that in the real world.

[young_at_heart]

60. Has Congress become superfluous?

I don't know why we pay those big salaries....what do they do anyway?

[newspeak]

63. my head is spinning

first we have an administration that didn't protect us on 9/11. Come on, I can believe someone can slip through one airport but more than one--NO!!! Then, we have an administration that starts a war based upon lies on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and proceeds to give the President more powers (because we are at war)--a war that they started with lies. Now, we have a pResident that wants total power because we are at war based on his lies and the fact he did not protect us. I think history repeats itself and it's Mad King George again!!!! Crazy, crazy, crazy!!!!:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Tellurian]

84. Just Irrelevant...

When Hitler dissolved his own parliamentary congress,
he became a dictator. Any similarities here are merely
coincidental.

No public outcry-not a wimper out of Congress.

[KansDem]

64. Is this why Pukes denounced "activist judges" who legislate from bench?

Because all along they wanted a president to do that? A Puke president?

[Nothing Without Hope]

66. The Bushies believe that their wingnut-packed Supreme Court will allow

these outrageously unconstitutional power grabs. The pace of the Nazification of America is picking up now that they think they have the mass media and both Congress AND the Supreme Court in their pocket.

K & R

[suffragette]

85. The pace is picking up and they are becoming ever more bold at

shoving it in our faces and saying so what you gonna do about it. And each time nothing, or very little, is said or done, they take it a step farther.

[wordpix2]

225. you are right, they've only been told NO once--that was over Dubai Ports

[LeftHander]

67. Statement by Bush - Constitutional Crisis

President's Statement on H.R. 199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

[rodeodance]

73. only if the Repugs and the Media agrees

[The Deacon]

74. EXCUSE ME?

"The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."???

So, what activities would fall OUTSIDE these restrictions? Those pertaining to being struck by lightning while being pulled down the aisle of a 747 by a rickshaw driver named Windslow? He's effectively claimed that he can withold information from Congress for whatever reason HE deems necessary.

[Zhade]

123. Indeed. Welcome to DU.

NT!

[BeHereNow]

150. ROLF!!! WELCOME TO DU!

"Those pertaining to being struck by lightning while being pulled down the aisle of a 747 by a rickshaw driver named Windslow?"
Fucking brilliant...
BHN

[Higans]

159. You are correct. Welcome to DU....

[Acryliccalico]

163. Welcome to DU........ n/t

[wordpix2]

226. unitary executive branch=divine right of King Geo W in BushWorld

[rodeodance]

69. Please contact your Senators--send them this article (both parties)

[BrklynLiberal]

77. Some day they will using this quote about us.....

It has been quoted before, and it should be quoted more often...

They Thought They Were Free
by Milton Mayer

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933,between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

<snip>

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, "everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

Much, much more....

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free_nn4.html

[superconnected]

78. The only house I think that needs searched for terrorist ties

is bush's.

We have a dictator. Do you really believe he's going to step down when his term is up. He wasn't even elected. He KNOWS that. Both times it was crooked elections.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck.

This guy is a dicatator and he isn't going to just walk away after his term is done. We've already seen how Republicans and George Bush feel about honest elections and the US constitution.

[Zhade]

124. No, I don't believe he will.

And then what happens?

Will Americans finally wake the fuck up and march on the criminals?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

238. If another of his cronies gets (s)elected, why wouldn't he?

The machine keeps running. Dictatorating is hard work, and it's established fact that he loves vacations.

Now, whenever a Dem gets elected Prez, things will get ugly.

[napi21]

81. Here's an interesting article by Jhn Dean about signing statements

and how it's going to bite Shrub in the A**! Read the whole article if you have the time. Dean is very good at explaining things, and predicting the outcome. Most of what he wrote in his book is coming true.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

(snip)

The longer term impact of signing statements is potentially grave - and is being ignored by the Bush administration. But it cannot be ignored forever. Defiance by Bush of Congressional lawmaking will come back to haunt this President.

Watergate was about abuse of power. Nixon, not unlike Bush, insisted on pushing the powers of the presidency to, and beyond, their limits. But as Nixon headed into his second term with even grander plans than he'd had in the first term, the Congress became concerned. (And for good reason.)

Bush, who has been pushing the envelope on presidential powers, is just beginning to learn what kind of Congressional blowback can result.

[KevinJH87]

83. how can he get away with this?

This is so obvious. He is pretty much saying he does not have to obey the Constitution. It negates checks and balances and everything that the Constitution is built on.

Where is the opposition? Where is the media coverage?

This is something everybody needs to be made aware of. I do not even think republican senators can support him on this matter. I cannot see how anybody can justify what he is saying.

[rodeodance]

89. because Congress and the Media allow him to 'get a way' with it! Simple

isn't it!

[KevinJH87]

90. very simple... and very scary

[rodeodance]

94. dangerouly scary. I feel rather helpless (I sent the artilce to my congre

ss critters, but I still feel empty)

[wordpix2]

228. good, at least you acted. Pls. don't feel helpless against *CheneyFudd

[wordpix2]

227. "they" should be doing more but "we" need to take back America ourselves

No "they" about it.

[PegDAC]

137. He pretty much said that

when he called the Constitution "a GD piece of paper".

[Higans]

160. Welcom to DU

:hi: :argh:

[MissMillie]

88. When I think of our founding fathers....

who were so adamant that we not have a monarchy.... adamant that we live with a system of checks and balances.....

They are rolling over in their graves.

You can bet that if Clinton had pulled this, Congress would be having a major hissy fit.

[Zhade]

125. And if Clinton had, I'd be right there with Congress.

No matter who does this, it's wrong! (I know you know this, I'm just emphasizing the point.)

[MissMillie]

204. absolutely

:)

emphasize away!

[Seabiscuit]

93. PURE UNMITIGATED FASCISM!!!

These bastards should be rotting away in prison by now!

Congress?

What Congress?

[pinniped]

96. I heard on the radio yesterday that they are likely committing....

warrantless physical searches as well.

There are a lot of knowns, unknowns, known unknowns, and unknown knowns.

[Nothing Without Hope]

98. The answer to why the Bushies still want a Congress (for now):

"No truly sophisticated proponent of repression would be stupid enough to shatter the façade of democratic institutions." -- Murray B. Levin, Political Hysteria in America, 1971

It'e happened again and again in history:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)

[mzmolly]

100. Voting yea or nea on the pat act matters not as this President makes

his own rules/laws.

[Zhade]

127. If that's the case, and it's starting to look that way...

...then people should vote no on principle, since voting yes isn't going to save their careers either!

[mzmolly]

131. I don't think it's about careers, it's about trying to rein in a mad man.

Saying no gives him an excuse to "protect america" when "the law makers refuse." Saying yes with restrictions leaves Bush with no excuses.

[Zhade]

133. As you just pointed out, saying yes with restrictions doesn't mean SHIT.

So, again, stick to principle.

Unless you'd think people should support things like the PA, in which case my point is moot (some here think the PA should be supported, and I've no idea where you stand on the matter).

[mzmolly]

166. Saying no gives an "excuse" to override the law.

By doing so, we may see Impeachment.

As for the "PA" I don't care for certain aspects of course. However, I'm thankful that Democrats made the laws temporary.

~ From the ACLU ~

We will continue to press for needed reforms to protect American freedoms. But we're sadly aware that in some ways the debate over reform may itself be completely moot. Until the Bush administration stops the illegal NSA program to spy on Americans, and stops ignoring the rule of law, any reforms to the Patriot Act may simply go unheeded under the extreme view of unlimited power embraced by this president.

Congress must restore the rule of law and insist that Americans' rights be protected. Our great nation can, and must, be both safe and free.

Together with our allies on the right and the left, we have made tremendous progress over the past four years. The Bush administration had sought a repeat of 2001, when the Patriot Act was passed quickly with little debate and only a few courageous dissenters. But the national debate over the secret search powers expanded by the Patriot Act has come a long way.

Our efforts achieved a legislative impact that many, if not most, people thought was impossible. A bipartisan group of 52 Senators was willing to stand up to the administration and filibuster the bill last year. And we saw an exponential increase in the number of members of Congress willing to stand against the bill until it is reformed to fully protect fundamental American values.'

http://blog.reformthepatriotact.org/

If we want change we have to elect a Democratic congress - first and foremost.

[Zhade]

207. But, of course, we must ensure those Dems who are voted in...

...actually ACT as Dems.

[wordpix2]

229. but---he's no madman, he's God's messenger. See this link:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html

[sellitman]

101. Time to Frog March these turds out of office! n/t

[Rockholm]

102. Wake Up America!

What an asshole he is.

[emulatorloo]

103. Kick n/t

[windy252]

104. To cover his slimy butt n/t

[Generator]

105. There he goes again!

Somebody give this boy a time-out. He's begging for one.

[DrZeeLit]

107. Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Congress KNOWS he did this... sooooo

1) Why do we hear about it now? (I suppose we're "lucky" to hear about it at all)
2) Why isn't ANYONE up in arms? (and by anyone, I mean CONGRESS)
3)What can a citizen do about this?

I am partially aghast (and that small percentage of my cynical self is NOT aghast, but whispering "I toldja")

I would think some Congress members, on BOTH SIDES of the aisle, would have something to say about this. After all, they really slugged out that Patriot Act. Many voted against it. Many waivered and fell.

So, now that it's basically gutted, by an entity NOT the Congress, what gives?

I really want somebody with BALLS -- somebody in a POWERFUL PRIME TIME MEDIA POSITION -- to tell the rest of the citizens of the United States about this. Because you all know how it goes. We know here at DU, because we choose to be informed. The rest of the pack, the lemmings, need a nod from those who tell them what's happening, no matter how late in the game.

Sheesh.
I can wait to see how the Bush side spins this one.... if they're ever asked.

[PBass]

110. I guess the balance of power was just a theoretical suggestion. (eom)

[MessiahRp]

111. This guy is a criminal.

If I were the President following Bush into office I would order full ivestigation of his illegal activities, indict him and imprison the entire cabal.

Rp

[Texaroo]

121. How could he be a criminal?

I mean, he exempted himself from every law he ever signed...

[Blutodog]

112. The War of Democracy

I've re-named the so called "War on Terror." It's actually a power grab by our new King and should be called The War on Democracy! When are the DC DEMOS going to speak up about this man's claim to being a Dictator that stands above the law? Are the DC DEMOS so scared by what Bu$hCo has dug up on all of them that they have been black mailed into silence? Can't these men and women see what this criminal and his gang are doing?

[OneBlueSky]

114. um . . . isn't this, like . . . ILLEGAL? . . . or somethin'? . . . n/t

.

[PegDAC]

138. In the words of Tricky Dick,

"If the President does it, it's not illegal".

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

119. congrats on reauthorizing the patriot act congress!

you get what you pay for! :eyes:

[Borgnine]

120. What's the point anymore?

We vote, but the election is stolen.

We write to our congressmen, but they don't give a damn about the peasants.

We protest, but we're ignored.

Laws are made, but Bush chooses not to follow them.

The media looks the other way the whole time.

After six years of our efforts becoming more and more futile and the Bush Administration getting more and more brazen in the face of dwindling poll numbers, I have to wonder what's the use. They clearly have their dictatorship. They're easing us away from the Constitution so that mass riots don't break out, but the deed is done.

Was it really this easy to overthrow our government the whole time?

[Texaroo]

122. Ask Joe Goebbels

Yup. Pretty much. Just wave the prospect of two men kissing, scare the crap out of everyone by intimating terrorists are gonna piss in their water supply, start a meaningless war and screw your allies over, and, voila, you've got a MACHINE!

[mvd]

206. Unfortunately

They are still easing us into a dictatorship faster than the Democrats and "moderate" Repukes in Congress and the American people are opposing. I fear that without a media that will alert us to things like this, all might be lost for a long time if we don't have a good November this year.

Bush is outrageous! We should chant "Legislating from the Office!" - and we wouldn't be hypocritical doing it.

[savemefromdumbya]

126. We have to saw off the executive branch til it can behave itself

this executive branch is totally rotten. A new one can grow again.

[HuffleClaw]

128. "after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly...

...a ''signing statement,"

that really does say it all don't it? he did the same thing when it was the mccain anti-torture law.

[superconnected]

141. the republicans showed up for the secrect congress

session, after congress closed for christmans a few years ago, to pass the medicare bill.

Shows you how they really feel about the democratic process.

[wordpix2]

239. "did the same thing when it was the mccain anti-torture law" & now McCain

is BushCo's biggest supporter. Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say.

[VP505]

129. This just

underscores WHY we need Feingolds censure resolution NOW,Bu$h needs a rude awakening, something to get his attention. The longer congress waits to do that the stronger his wrong sense of unitary executive becomes.

[genieroze]

130. Is anybody really surprised?

[RazzleDazzle]

139. So tell me how the U.S. isn't a de facto constitutional dictatorship

now?

Anyone?

[superconnected]

140. we're a dictatorship.

no balance of power.

King George, again...

[Seldona]

145. The nerve of this guy!

Does he actually believe that congressional oversight is a NATIONAL SECURITY RISK? Is he calling congressmen and congresswomen traitors?

I often wonder if *Bush was skipping class the day they explained the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[high density]

147. Why doesn't congress remove this fucker?

He's making them obsolete. Buncha lame asses down there that don't have a clue how to govern.

[wordpix2]

230. because they're all clusterfucking & have too much on each other?

[BeHereNow]

148. The fat lady has sung. It's over.

The only thing to look forward to in our lifetimes is this:

Witnessing the awakenings of the bushbots to the fact
that they have been FUCKED in the house of smoke and mirrors
by the very people they voted for.

If anyone can think of anything else to look forward
to at this point, please let me know.

BHN

[wordpix2]

231. I look toward BushCo in jail & feds selling off their ranches, mansions

Carlyle Grp and Halliburton stock and other assets---to fatten up the depleted Treasury.

We can dream can't we?

[VegasWolf]

149. The little DICKtator dosen't care for any regulations. nt

[Independent_Liberal]

151. Bush to Congress: "Fuck you!"

That about sums it up.

:)

[BeHereNow]

165. Congress to American Citizenry: "Fuck You!...

As our daddy Bush has said, 'Who cares what you think?
Our congress piggy-critter asses are swimming in corporate
payola, so stop bothering us about being the voice of the people.
We work for THEM, not YOU- get over it and starve like the
other third world plebs."
Now fuck off and die because
were busy eating at the corporate trough.
Sincerely laughing all the way to our multi national
corporate bank accounts,
Your Congress men and women"

[pinto]

155. Look at the words in Bush's Patriot Act "signing statement" !

<snip>

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

<end snip>

"Outside the executive branch" means every one else...

And "the unitary executive branch" means a power totally unto itself.

It's a chilling assertion of a one branch government...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement

[salin]

157. Exactly... there is no need to heed constitutional

checks and balances - no oversight needed - and as you state: it suggests a one-branch govt where the rest is symbolic.

[BeHereNow]

171. And just LOOK at those "democrats" rising up against it!

I'd say it's gone far beyond "suggests a one branch govt where the rest is symbolic..."
More like, it IS a one branch govt with NO distinctions between the "symbolic" parties
or branches.
Hideous, the whole thing is just HIDEOUS.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

156. Comments from the "Stay and Fight" crowd?

Any one NOT thinking of leaving the country
at this point is probably also expecting a visit from
Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

Stay and fight? Stay and fight?
No thanks.
I think I'd have better luck
teaching my dog to play chess.

The people who are SUPPOSED to fight
(our congress piggies etc...)
are IN on it!!!

Isn't that clear by now?

BHN

[Higans]

161. sad but true.

[Beelzebud]

162. It's time to overthrow this dictator....

[Up2Late]

164. Disgusting. I have a question. Do the ReThuglicans think that these...

...signing statements ONLY apply to THIS so-called pResident? Because they don't, these apply to ALL future Presidents!

Sounds like it's time for a Constitutional Amendment making Signing Statements 100% Un-Constitutional!

I hope someone is keeping track of all these Signing statements, because you know as soon as a Democrat is elected President, the ReThuglicans are going to immediately try to make all these "new Presidential Powers" illegal.

[BeHereNow]

167. Excuse me? "As soon as a Democrat is elected president?"

Oh boy, that'll scare them but good, since the
"democrats" are apparently fine with it.

In case you haven't noticed, there are no deomocrats
or republicans, there are only corporate owned asses
feeding at the trough who could care a less
about "we, the people."

Sorry.
There will be no "knights in shining armor"
rushing in to save us anymore than there
will be a democrat who gives a rat's ass about
that fact.

BHN

[Up2Late]

168. Sorry you feel that way, but even by you definition, I wasn't talking...

...about anyone currently in congress who "is fine with it."

And for the record, I don't think there is much that anyone in the minority (the Democrats) can do about this right now, so I think the "...keeping their powder dry" strategy is probably wise for now.

Until the everyone is out making speeches, in the lead up to 2006 Election (when everyone is saying it, so they have to attack everyone at the same time), until then, they should just keep making the list, and refining their attack speeches.

[BeHereNow]

169. Do you honestly think 2006 elections will save us?

Just curious as to "how?" if so.
Do you imagine that the army of complicit
zombie democrats will suddenly come to life
and turn this train around?
Sorry, I don't see it as long as their
asses are owned my the same corporate
masters controlling their colleagues on the
so called "other" side of the aisle.
Beyond despair,
BHN

[Up2Late]

173. No, and it's not for the reasons you gave either.

I don't know where you live, but I'm guessing that your vote is still counted, mine (here is Georgia) is NOT.

So use it while you still have it. Because when it's gone, being cynical and bitter won't help bring it back.

Good luck in your despair,

I'll keep my hope, because it's all I have left.

[BeHereNow]

178. Glad you can still hope, however my vote being counted

doesn't amount to a hill of beans when
BOTH the democrats and the republicans
have become the ruling pigs of Orwell's Animal Farm.
I am unable to distinguish the "two legs" from the "four legs"
at this point.
Where is the hope in that?
BHN

[VP505]

184. Good question,

and if the Dem's don't grow a pair pretty quick he (Bu$h) is going to keep giving everyone the finger while he replaces the 06 mid term and 08 election with his coronation ceremony.

[wordpix2]

232. BHN--you're bringing us down. Get out & work for a good candidate, they'r

e not all bad. Or run for a seat (local, state) yourself.

[Rex]

170. '...he did not feel obliged to obey requirements...'

I guess Congress can go fuck itself! Keep on supporting this insane man lurking freepers, you will be remembered as the loyalist idiots of the 21st century.

[Hubert Flottz]

172. Bush don't laugh at congress behind their backs anymore...

He spits in their faces now! It's what happens when you appease a Dictator like Hitler!

[kohodog]

174. Bring out the torches and pitch forks.

Time to Revolution.

I'm not one to advocate violence but I think it is time to start shouting our outrage. Civil disobedience. But how do you make sheep angry?

[Talismom]

192. Oh they'll get angry eventually. When the brown shirts knock on their

door or that of their neighbors...but by then it'll be too late. The thugs are building prisons in the south, officially for illegal immigrants who may be terrorists, and trying out "crowd control" weapons, again officially to use in Iraq (where crowd control is not the issue).By the time people here grab their pitch forks, the Kent State massacre will look like a tea party! Unless we see some action to stop these fascists soon, you can kiss the life you've always known and expected goodbye.

[DemGa]

175. B*** says "we are at war"

Are we technically at war? What is the basis for B*** ignoring the law? Thanks.

[Greylyn58]

176. I have had it with this miserable excuse

for a human being!

This man SWORE to: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
--Presidential oath of office, Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution

He has lied and broken his word since the get go. He should be IMPEACHED RIGHT NOW!!!!
He has done everything within his power to destroy the one thing he swore to protect, preserve and defend.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

[subterranean]

179. Do these signing statements also apply to future presidents?

Or only to the president who signs them? And is it legal for a president to "interpret" a law as not applying to himself?

[omega minimo]

180. We HAVE to be ABLE to look AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce:
:bounce:
:bounce:


The time to get outraged
and "send this article to our representatives" with our comments
or threaten to kick the bums out if they sell U.S. out (again)
and spread the word
and have threads with 200 replies and 70 votes for Greatest is DURING THE ALITO HEARINGS.

The Unitary Executive threads on DU were a real non-starter. Alito introduced this "Signing Statement" shit back with Reagan. We had Mike Malloy ranting on air about how this was IT folks-- if this guy got on the Court it was all over. And here on DU it was "Unitary What? What's that mean?.....boring......" and repeated Urinary jokes and it was NOT a big DEAL.

It WAS a big deal. Is it impossible for us to educate and organize ourselves AHEAD of time?

Could we have stopped Alito? Who knows. :shrug:

But a thread like this with this much outrage and energy and activist intent woulda been a start.



:grouphug: :yourock: :hi:

[Emillereid]

181. Congress should be up in arms. Pray tell what distinguishes

Bush from a dictator??

[BeHereNow]

185. Pray tell, what distinguishes Congress from Bush?

Certainly not this latest atrocity.
Pray tell, WHERE the fuck IS the Congress
on ANY FUCKING atrocity over the last six years?
Pray tell indeed.
BHN

[psychopomp]

182. It is going to be a hot summer...

With the numerous scandals that are swirling around the administration--not least of which is the unfolding defeat in Iraq--it will be very tough for the gang around *Bush to keep the rank stench of failure off of Dear Leader.

They will get desperate.

[prete_nero]

186. this is sickening

Here's what i sent to Senator Johnson and Rep. Herseth. I didn't send it to Thune...lost cause there.
I had previously sent a message saying simply:

"Do you support the enforcement of law or do you support letting criminals go free"

...no respose, so I sent:

I take the lack of a response from your office to my question to be an answer as such: "While we recognize that everyone should be and is under the rule of law, this should not apply to the president. He who is trying to protect us must not be held accountable to any law that congress passes, and more importantly, to any of the Constitution. It is only by allowing this that we will win in the fight for our freedoms."

Call me a crazy liberal but doesn't this sound like it is completely destructive to American's liberties?


...I'm guessing I'll get no response again, but I'm just guessing.

[prete_nero]

187. spoke too soon

oddly enough, I just messaged Johnson and was on to emailing Herseth when I JUST got this response:

Dear Andrew:

Thank you for contacting me regarding a proposal for a
Congressional censure of the President. I appreciate hearing from
you.

While many concerns have been raised regarding intelligence
failures prior to the war in Iraq, it is unlikely a resolution
expressing Congressional disapproval of the President's
intelligence failures prior to the war will be implemented.
However, I support continued efforts to investigate how
intelligence data was used by intelligence and administration
officials. We must work to ensure that the intelligence community,
Congress, and the President have access to the best-available
intelligence in the future.

Congress continues to consider a number of important changes to
address these issues and to streamline our intelligence gathering
capabilities. I will work to ensure intelligence reform measures are
implemented, and work to ensure that our government has reliable
intelligence on which to base future decisions.

Thanks again for contacting me, and please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Herseth




SOUNDS LIKE A CRAP RESPONSE TO ME, I WANTED HERSETH BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE SHE WAS A LION IN SHEEPS CLOTHING. (and very pretty clothing at that;-)

[BeHereNow]

189. Well, at least she smiled politely while she fucked you.

I wouldn't hold my breath for her to do shit.
But, at least she told you so nicely!
Again, welcome to DU.
BHN

[Rex]

198. Standard response - welcome to DU!

No matter what the outcome, at least you wrote and got a reply. Good job citizen!

[wordpix2]

233. whenever Lieberbush responds to me, he doesn't even mention the words

Bush, intelligence, signing statements or anything pertaining to what I wrote. I just get a "thank you and would you like to be on my email list?" message that goes on like that for 2 paragraphs, saying absolutely nothing.

He did recently write me a one pager agreeing with me on protecting the Endangered Species Act.

[BeHereNow]

188. Welcome to DU- at least you DID something.

Myself, I no longer believe anything I do
makes a difference.
We have lost the country.
I wish I still believed we could make a difference,
but honestly, when the Congress does NOTHING,
I end up asking mself, "Who are you kidding?"
The Congress doesn't work for us- not anymore.
They work for the multi national corporates
who OWN their asses and would prefer
that we all die tomorrow.
Less of us means more for them in
a world that is finally sobering up to the
reality of NON renewable resources.
BHN

[lovuian]

190. Take that Congress I can do what ever I freakin want

this just says Congress I'm a Dictator...

[wordpix2]

234. I just wrote my senators--wonder if Lieberbush will respond with his usual

"Thank you for your comments, it was so great to hear from you, I'm working hard in the Senate and be assured I'm taking care of everything wonderfully well." (paraphrased typical email response to anything I write him about, except environment).

[Selteri]

193. Bush - Why does he hate America and the Law?

Why are we allowing a president who not only flaunts the laws, but has stated he is above hte law now multiple times, something that is unacceptable for any president... with the way he is acting I would not be surprised if he ends up destroying the presidency so badly that we end up with a Prime Minister.

[goforit]

196. Since when does the prez make laws?.....Only if it is TYRRANNICAL

[Wise Doubter]

197. "This job would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship,"

"As long as I`m the dictator."
-George W Bush



Why do we all seem so surprised and upset? :wow: He has already told us what he intends to do.


"RESISTANCE IS FUTILE,

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE,

RE-SIS-TANCE IS FU-TILE......."


Rise up ! We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

[long_green]

199. I don't care who is president, that is (and should be made)

unconstitutional.
A signing statement, according to the article, is "an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of the law."
I'll make a deal with the President: if he can walk out and in five minutes coherently express his interpretation of this law in his own words (no hidden mikes), then he can have his signing statement.

[Rocknrule]

201. Unlimited POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Imagevision]

203. What Bush lied about? --think about it - his word is meaningless!

[The Animator]

208. I am not surprised in the slightest.

At every turn this idiot emperor demonstrates his utter distaste for oversight. He beleives that it is his job to rule over all of us, when it is in fact his true duty to serve us. I wouldn't trust this retard to mop the floors at my local Circle K, and yet he has the audacity to demand that his boss not look over his shoulder to see how badly he is screwing things up.

Yeah, I'm doing a great job here, these floors are spotless, you should see em'... No! don't actually look at the floors for godsakes! gees it was just an expression... just trust me, they're clean ok?