Bush challenges hundreds of laws

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Article Tools

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
(snip)

(snip)Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. (snip)

(snip)
The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.
(snip)


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

[ixion]

1. If We, the People allow a power grab like this to go unchecked

we will get what we deserve: a theocracy.


The Chimp has said he'll do whatever he damn well pleases with our republic. Is this America?

[rodeodance]

21. Congress has to make the push-with WE the people---until then-

bushco will have another 750 !!

[Doctor_J]

47. THere's nothing we can do about it

You should probably face that fact.

[bdamomma]

58. I think that is what they want

to turn our heads away, sorry, I cannot do that. Is this what we want for our children? Power in numbers, I only wish people would wake up to that fact that we could control this.

[Doctor_J]

64. NO, they want us to keep banging our heads against the wall,

believing we are accomplishing something, talking until we're blue in the face, plotting GOTV efforts, and engaging in group therapy while they continue to run the country into the ground.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Really it's a Moroncracy.

Deserved if this shit goes unchecked.

[aquart]

2. And still his lackeys will not impeach.

The GOP is the POT (Party of Treason).

[UrbScotty]

42. It's been said that someone should give Bush a blow job

...so he can be impeached.

[teryang]

3. The rule of law means nothing to these people

He's a dictator pure and simple.

[PurityOfEssence]

67. Yep. It's the "because I said so" administration

And you, you peon, you'd better watch your step.

Of course, you're completely right; in fact, conservatives relish successful lawbreaking because it's the sign of individual power.

This little nobody never emotionally developed beyond first-grade recess. Too bad nobody ever really beat the snot out of him, but he'll get his comeuppance yet. With any luck, he'll live long enough to see himself reviled and ignored. He'll sit alone in the corner wearing his Napoleon hat and sucking on his liter of Beam as the phone never rings. He'll be as ignored as Tom DeLay, and it'll grate his narcissistic and primitive being to the core.

May he live to be a hundred and ten.

[neoblues]

4. Hundreds more laws... Challenge Bush!

The hundreds he's broken... no doubt scores of which he didn't even think ahead enough to include in his list of "laws that don't apply to special little me".

In any case, it's an affront to the most basic tenet of our form of government and our way of life: the rule of law. No one is, or can be above it (if the law is written to exclude you, then it doesn't apply to you--you don't have to claim, after the fact, that you are 'above' it). This is damned serious. If he gets away with it--if he can set a precedent that we don't reverse in a relatively short time, all may be lost. Actually, if he gets away with it at all--there may be no going back. Even if we reverse it--assuming it takes a Democratic majority to do so--then as soon as political fortunes change--the discriminatory over-law may be put back; and back and forth we go. How long we'd remain a nation of laws in such circumstances is anybody's guess.

We need to "Challenge Bush". We the people MUST DEMAND that Congress and the Supreme Court stand up for the Constitution and put this "President" in his place (which IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to "supreme ruler")!

[bdamomma]

59. we could challenge him, if you really care about freedom and democracy

[rodeodance]

5. more here-says Bush has been 'aggressive'--that is an understatement

......Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

[rodeodance]

6. The article-'The predator state'---goes well with article.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/predator_state.html
> James K. Galbraith: 'The predator state'
> Posted on Saturday, April 29 @ 09:17:06 EDT
> This article has been read 1117 times. Enron, Tyco, WorldCom... and the U.S. government?
>
> James K. Galbraith, Mother Jones
>
> WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE of American capitalism today? Is it a grand national adventure, as politicians and textbooks aver, in which markets provide the framework for benign competition, from which emerges the greatest good for the greatest number? Or is it the domain of class struggle, even a "global class war," as the title of Jeff Faux's new book would have it, in which the "party of Davos" outmaneuvers the remnants of the organized working class?
>
> The doctrines of the "law and economics" movement, now ascendant in our courts, hold that if people are rational, if markets can be "contested," if memory is good and information adequate, then firms will adhere on their own to norms of honorable conduct. Any public presence in the economy undermines this. Even insurance--whether deposit insurance or Social Security--is perverse, for it encourages irresponsible risktaking. Banks will lend to bad clients, workers will "live for today," companies will speculate with their pension funds; the movement has even argued that seat belts foster reckless driving. Insurance, in other words, creates a "moral hazard" for which "market discipline" is the cure; all works for the best when thought and planning do not interfere. It's a strange vision, and if we weren't governed by people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, who pretend to believe it, it would scarcely be worth our attention.
>
> The idea of class struggle goes back a long way; perhaps it really is "the history of all hitherto existing society," as Marx and Engels famously declared. But if the world is ruled by a monied elite, then to what extent do middle-class working Americans compose part of the global proletariat? The honest answer can only be: not much. The political decline of the left surely flows in part from rhetoric that no longer matches experience; for the most part, American voters do not live on the Malthusian margin. Dollars command the world's goods, rupees do not; membership in the dollar economy makes every working American, to some degree, complicit in the capitalist class.
>
> In the mixed-economy America I grew up in, there existed a post-capitalist, post-Marxian vision of middle-class identity. It consisted of shared assets and entitlements, of which the bedrock was public education, access to college, good housing, full employment at living wages, Medicare, and Social Security. These programs, publicly provided, financed, or guaranteed, had softened the rough edges of Great Depression capitalism, rewarding the sacrifices that won the Second World War. They also showcased America, demonstrating to those behind the Iron Curtain that regulated capitalism could yield prosperity far beyond the capacities of state planning. (This, and not the arms race, ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.) These middle-class institutions survive in America today, but they are frayed and tattered from constant attack. And the division between those included and those excluded is large and obvious to all.
>
> Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither benign competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia. Instead, predation has become the dominant feature--a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; it may be opposed by many others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we live.

[rodeodance]

9. and includes the Bush family:

....In a predatory economy, the rules imagined by the law and economics crowd don't apply. There's no market discipline. Predators compete not by following the rules but by breaking them. They take the business-school view of law: Rules are not designed to guide behavior but laid down to define the limits of unpunished conduct. Once one gets close to the line, stepping over it is easy. A predatory economy is criminogenic: It fosters and rewards criminal behavior.

Why don't markets provide the discipline? Why don't "reputation effects" secure good behavior? Economists have been slow to answer these questions, but now we have a full-blown theory in a book by my colleague William K. Black, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Black was the lawyer/whistle-blower in the Savings and Loan and Keating Five scandals; he later took a degree in criminology. His theory of "control fraud" addresses the situation in which the leader of an organization uses his company as a "weapon" of fraud and a "shield" against prosecution--a situation with which law and economics cannot cope.

For instance, law and economics argues that top accounting firms will protect their own reputations by ferreting out fraud in their clients. But, as with Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, at every major S&L control fraud was protected by clean audits from top accountants: You hire the top firm to get the clean opinion. Moral hazard theory shifts the blame for financial collapse to the incentives implicit in insurance, but Black shows that the large frauds were nearly all committed in institutions taken over for that purpose by criminal networks, often by big players like Charles Keating, Michael Milken, and Don Dixon. And there's another thing about predatory institutions. They invariably fail in the end. They fail because they are meant to fail. Predators suck the life from the businesses they command, concealing the fact for as long as possible behind fraudulent accounting and hugely complex transactions; that's the looter's point.

That a government run by people rooted in this culture should also be predatory isn't surprising--and the link between George H.W. Bush, who led the deregulation of the S&Ls, his son Neil, who ran a corrupt S&L, and Neil's brother George, for whom Ken Lay sent thugs to Florida in 2000 on the Enron plane, could hardly be any closer. But aside from occasional references to "kleptocracy" in other countries, economic opinion has been slow to recognize this. Thinking wistfully, we assume that government wants to do good, and its failure to do so is a matter of incompetence.

[rodeodance]

10. "In a predatory economy, the rules ...don't apply" --sure fits!

[GCP]

7. He laid it out for all to see in his first term

He said something like, the job would be easier if he was a dictator - and everybody thought it was a joke - but as Mark Crispin Miller has shown, his jokes are usually deadly serious. It's just that the reality-based section of society couldn't believe he meant this stuff seriously and so we shrugged it off.

Look at this stuff from the article:

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

The man's just plain evil.

[rodeodance]

12. good statement here about Congress (and its lack of oversite)

.....''The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party."

Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' "

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

[rodeodance]

13. and WH uses the straw man argument of Nat. Security--

[0007]

16. ...and the American people want a strong National Security

and it is my job to protect the American People.

[Pierzin]

65. 0007, thanks for the link!

thanks mate, theworldcantwait is awesome!

Viva la revolution!

[jukes]

30. i happened to be watching

the interview where he made his little joke, and it gave me chills. i was sure then the country was firmly in the control of sociopaths and democracy had officially ended.

i was right.

the coup isn't over yet, people. they still control our destiny. they will destroy this nation.

[Toucano]

8. His "signing statements" are irrelevent. n/t

[rodeodance]

11. WaJO-is talking (now)--of Bush Adm--trying to procecute Reporters under

espionage laws. nytimes article of a few days ago.

[WhiteTara]

54. Old KGB tactics in the Kremlin n/t

[Kurovski]

14. K&R(nt)

[rodeodance]

15. Look here--Bush argument:

.....Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Interpretation:

Chimp thinks he's the Supreme Court.

Wadda fuckin' moron.

[Strawman]

60. "I get to be the decider"

[chat_noir]

17. Comparison: Bush 41 - Bush 43

SOURCE: Presidential signing statements analyzed by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio, and by the Globe

[Vidar]

18. Impeach, then execute!

[rodeodance]

20. nice graph, thanks

[Rose Siding]

19. Charlie Savage

Great work :applause:

[DeepModem Mom]

22. K AND R!

[indypaul]

23. A Democratic House of Rep and Sentate

will end this folly, but quick. Let's "get it on"

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. This is a dictatorship in the making.

He and his cohorts have to be stopped. Why is the Congress allowing this? Why isn't the media reporting this?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. I'm always amazed when I read something about "a dictatorship...

...in the making". It's NOT in the making!

Tell me what the NeoCon Junta is currently lacking to be a dictatorship now?

Tell me what the NeoCon Junta lacked when they took over in December 2000 with the assistance of the U. S. Supreme Court?

A dictatorship needs to have control of all branches of the government...executive, legislative, and judicial...along with the military. It also requires strong corporate backing.

Tell me what the NeoCon Junta has lacked since taking over in December 2000?

[salin]

25. It is a constitutional crisis. The rate per day is about .4

meaning that if his signing statements were done daily - he is issuing one about once every 2.5 days. Each time one is signed he is denying the right to voters to have directly elected official representation in the sense that the voters chose representatives and senators to legislate and bush denies that voice. Each time he also claims that HE, not the supreme court or the judicial branch, is the final arbitor of "constitutionality" - as his premise that the signing statement represents HIS interpretation of the constitution and the bill/provision to which he is referring.

Because a good number of these statements are filed long after the bill is signed into law - most have gone unnoticed by the press and by congress. Seems that only some constitututional scholars have been watching these. Further more, because many of these directly pervert the right to congressional oversight (by denying that the exec branch has to report back to congress) - there is almost no way of learning which of the signing statements have been acted upon in terms of directing the exec branch (govt agencies) to implement has HE dictates in opposition to what has been constitutionally dictated (eg legislated by congress - and signed into law by the president.) This is WHY he doesn't VETO. Each one of these signing statements is a perversion of the constitutional process - and declares that the Exec branch has superiority rather than balance with the legislative and judicial branch.

Many of the items cited (and given at LEAST 750 times this has been used we are just reading about the tip of the iceberg) - have NOTHING to do with national security, which might be the only grounds claimed that most of the public would accept given the 'post 911' fear that still prevails.

At a rate of more than one time every three days since he was put into office, this president has side-stepped the constitution - and done so in an intentionally hidden way. If what he was doing was no problem - then he would have gone about his rejection of laws in a constitutional fashion - by the VETO. But a veto can be overridden. An unseen directive to the agencies of govt via his signing statement - can not be over ridden or rejected because it is NOT SEEN.

The current witch hunt atmosphere in the executive branch against whistleblowers who might try to disclose some of the unseen subversions of congressional intent - makes it even more insidious. In the sense that the Bush admin intends to rule as a dictatorship but hide it so that the public still *thinks* it is a democracy (or 'democratic republic').

This article, and any others in other papers, needs to be printed up and widely distributed. Everyone in the public needs to be aware. The new mantra needs to be "BLOCK BUSH!" We need to coopt the smear term used against Daschle and wear it with pride. This adminstration NEEDS TO BE OBSTRUCTED. For without frustrating their actions - who knows what will be left of our constitutional system at the end of the next three years.

[leftofthedial]

26. this is patently absurd

and has no basis in the Constitution or in law.

It's treason, in fact.

[lovuian]

28. Bush is king and above the law...

the fundamental principle that makes a democracy...

Magna Carta states No King is above the Law

and Bush has violated that fundamental principle when he did that and Congress and the Supreme Court let him get away with that... thats when he became a dictator...



Republican Congress is very very corrupt and spineless
SupremeCourt corrupt and ineffective
Military under the command of a man who wants to destroy them

America's government is broken and ineffective...Its let the American people down...

[kineneb]

29. Does this mean...

if he, as a citizen, can disobey the laws, that we, as citizens, can do likewise?

(first thought upon reading headline)

[Karenca]

31. B*SH Claims He Has Authority To DISOBEY More Than 750 Laws

Bush challenges hundreds of laws -- The Boston Globe
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 200


President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Link to entire article----http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

[aquart]

32. Treasonous bastard and his treasonous party.

They will not impeach him because he is them.

[goforit]

33. Whoa!!!....Psychopath run amock?.......

Watchit bucko!!!

[Pathwalker]

34. How many are drug laws?

n/t

[goforit]

35. roflmao!!!!

[Karenca]

36. My favorite line in the article: "he has the power to set aside any

statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with 'HIS' interpretation of the Constitution."

[ticapnews]

37. If the president does it, that means it's not illegal. (eom)

[ebayfool]

44. Positively Nixonian isn't it? And we know what happened when he said that!

History could use some repeating here!

Only this time, no resignation ... it needs to go all the way to trial & punishment! That's the only way to keep this nightmare from being repeated yet again - make damned sure that it's prosecuted.

on edit:
omly!

[Mojambo]

38. a few more folders in the impeachment file

It's gonna happen, Georgie.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[barb162]

39. he is such a J-E-R-K

[Double T]

40. Self-proclaimed 'god' almighty himself........

or is it 'satan'?

[Vidar]

41. That brings us up to about 800 articles for impeachment & treason.

[pnwmom]

56. Refresh my memory, please. Does this have to do with John Conyer's

lawsuit? Doesn't his lawsuit deal with this sort of issue? I hope so.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

43. I reiterate.

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

[fedsron2us]

52. L'etat c'est moi.

George really does think he is a Bourbon Sun King.

[PurityOfEssence]

66. The Emperor of Fuckyouistan

If you think about it, he is a Bourbon king.

[Fridays Child]

45. When amoral ignorance weds amoral avarice

Re: "...just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power."

Bush doesn't assert any such belief. How can he? He doesn't even understand the laws concerning presidential power. But Cheney understands them. So do all of the members of the PNAC.

This is what happens when amoral ignorance weds amoral avarice.

[Doctor_J]

46. And since he's never read the COnstitution, has NO IDEA what it says,

that means he basically just does whatever he wants, and no one can hold him accountable. For anything. If he starts executing protestors summarily, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.

* is now worse than hitler.

[HuffleClaw]

48. a great example of bush's insanity and contempt for the law

but damn is it funny how he's yet to actually veto anything, considering he's threatened it a few hundred times or something.

[Rex]

49. July 30, 2001

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - George Bush Jr.

[Faryn Balyncd]

53. utter contempt for the rule of law...

by a president who claims to be a "strict constructionist" .......

and the gutless white housed press corps think he's a good old boy....

[peacetheonlyway]

62. so who's at fault

our police force for not enforcing "the rule of law"

our military for acting improperly and violating international geneva conventions

isn't there a whole mess of people also as guilty as bush???

i think it has taken a lot of folks to allow bush to rise to power the same way it took Germans turning the other cheek when the jews were being carted off onto trains to auschwitz..

how do we fix the system so this never can come close to happening again?

[low_phreaq]

55. He has refused his Assent to Laws

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
--The Declaration of Independence

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Peter Frank]

57. Here's the * hand...

[peacetheonlyway]

61. which branch is most GUILTY of allowing the 3 branch system to dissolve

i've been pondering this for a long time.

i thought the 3 branch system setup by our founding fathers was bullet proof.
Which branch is MOST to blame for Bush usurping all the powers of the branches?
And should we rethink the TOTAL LACK OF DIRECT CITIZEN ACCESS to stop this madness.

initially, they setup this system to prevent citizens (that is getting around a one citizen one vote) to impact
things but does the improper connection of Congress to our actual citizen demands need to be revisited.
The electoral college completely revamped to a more equitable format?

which branch deserves the guilty plea?

[Pharaoh]

63. we are screwed.......