Why shouldn't every American be outraged by what is happening?

[kentuck]

Not just the Democratic Party but every Republican as well? Just yesterday, the President signed a statement which says he can open everyone's mail anytime he chooses. What type of American would not be outraged by that? What's even more scary is that there are some "Democrats" that have seemed to have surrendered to these tactics. "There is nothing we can do..." they say. "You leftists are not in touch with reality and are simply indulging in incoherent rants..." Meanwhile....

[babylonsister]

1. I believe he signed the authorization to check the mail in December,

when no one was looking, which is even worse.

[kentuck]

2. It's what we don't know...

about what he is doing that will shock the socks off everyone when it is discovered.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Which is why the Dems need to start acting like Fitzgerald!

The Dems should take John Dean's advice and begin calling in the Cabinet members, put them under oath, and grill them on the extent of their crimes.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. I keep wondering when the proverbial straw is going to come

that breaks the camel's back. Bush keeps chip, chip, chip, chipping away and it is utterly mind-boggling that NOTHING happens!

[Clinton Crusader]

8. YES! I just posted..

why can't he be impeached? He acts like Caeser, as if there are no other branches of government, he can do whatever he likes, whenever he likes. But not a ripple is caused by any of it. It feels like an alternate universe.

And as I always say, What if CLINTON did this? I shudder to think what would be going on.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. The only answer I can fathom is that it really IS all about politics

The Dems are afraid it would be political suicide from the Cons; The Cons are afraid it would be political suicide from the Cons (no, that's not a typo). The echo chamber would be at maximum, blaming any and all critics as un-patriotic Liberals regardless of party affiliation.

How what Bush has done does not begin to equal Clinton's "lawbreaking" is shocking. It's almost like Global 'Climate Change'...we see it bit by bit and hear the warnings but do nothing. About the only thing that can save us now is to get a Democrat in the Oval Office so that the Cons can once again excoriate him/her for upholding the Constitution that Bush operated under. :grr:

[AndyA]

5. Reading our mail: The signing statement occurred on December 20, 2006.

Almost under cover of darkness. What a sneak Bush is.

This is why I believe the Democrats in Congress have a huge battle looming. Even with the knowledge that the Congress was about to be controlled by the Democrats, the snake that Bush is went ahead and did another signing statement anyway. And he knew we'd find out about it.

Is this how he plans on demonstating his bipartisanship? If it is, the Dems need to roll up their sleeves, put on safety protection, and go to battle, because they have a major fight on their hands.

Chimpy isn't going to go down without a fight. He won't take his toys and go home, so his toys will have to be taken from him, and he will have to be sent home. Forcibly, if necessary.

George Bush and the GOP's abuse of the American people, our freedoms, their oaths of office, and the Constitution must not be permitted to continue. The 110th Congress must take a firm stand and put a stop to it immediately, then take action to restore the integrity our founding fathers intended.

[ktlyon]

20. I can't believe signing statements have any basis in law.

I thought they were just to help clarify the law for people that it applies to. Not flipping it's meaning or excluding himself from it. If he doesn't follow the law he can and should be arrested after he is removed or leaves office.

[patrice]

6. Big Brother is Here. This practice CAN be used for ANY purpose.

And we're just supposed to trust that it won't be.

For example, couldn't opening anyone's mail be used as Industrial Espionage disguised as "National Security"?

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Count me outraged.

Unconstitutional.

[Homer Wells]

9. One of the early things the new Congress should do

is to look into this "signing statement" business the Noxious Weed keeps relying on.

I don't know a lot about how that works anyway, but until * showed up six years ago, I can recall NO instance in which this particular ploy was used by any President in my lifetime.

I know it is not in the Constitution, so it has to be some obscure law which gives him this pass to live above the law.

Does anyone knwo what the story is on signing statements?



:think:

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. Here's a little for you

From 1993: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm (Interesting read)

The Boston Globe's piece was one of the best about it:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

the rest from google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=signing+statements+history

[Homer Wells]

15. Thanks

I appreciate the information. This needs a lot more press coverage than it has been getting.

That being said, I don't think much of the press (except for Keith and a few others) will have the balls to raise much of a stink about it, unless the Impeachment question is (finally), seriously addressed by Congress. Only then will our fine Media :sarcasm: react in a positive way.

[vickitulsa]

25. Thank you for providing these handy links to vital information.

I know ... I could have found them by doing the search myself, but the ease of clicking links posted in a thread by another promotes more investigation by many besides me, I'm pretty sure. :)

I read carefully the first two pieces, then chose two others from the Google list, notably the one at FindLaw, which is a site I trust and have used often.

My summary of what I learned would take too long to put here, but I wanted to offer this paragraph from the Globe article you linked to, which I think gives us the best clue to how BushCo can be curbed by Democrats now in power.

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.

It's all about oversight, in my opinion. In the material I read, BushCo have almost completely deprived even the previous Repug-led Congress of the means to perform oversight duties by refusing to submit to all the provisions needed for them to do so. IOW, the White House refused to give up the information and documents needed to be overseen!

That paragraph above from the Globe holds another key to how the problem can be corrected, since "Bush's fellow Republicans" no longer "control both chambers" of Congress.

In fact, what I believe (and certainly hope) is happening already is that some of our brightest and most determined Dem leaders are very busy putting together legislative challenges to Bush's lawbreaking activities through their rightful, Constitutionally provided powers of oversight.

As another poster in this thread mentioned, we should be keeping in mind that we have yet seen only the tip of the iceberg of what BushCo have actually been doing and keeping secret. I have said this very thing before, and in line with that, I believe that Dems must turn up information on those further heinous activities in order to finally shock Americans into realizing they must support oversight functions of Congress in order to prevent this or any other future President from gaining unlimited power in our country.

While most Americans may not understand or have the time to study and learn about all the details of how our democratic republic works to preserve our liberties and rights, I believe they DO comprehend the importance of the basic separation of powers. And I believe that many Repugs presently in government would be willing to work with Dems now in the majority to re-assert the oversight function of Congress because they could well dread what a Dem President that might be elected in the future would do if s/he inherited the unlimited powers BushCo has tried to garner to the Office of the President.

I believe our Dems, now that they have the power, will be acting and acting soon to remedy what has been going wrong for six years in our country, thanks to the criminal BushCo regime's wicked plotting and maneuvering.

They surely KNOW how dangerous are the precedents this regime has set are, so I think we will see them setting the Ship of State aright as quickly as they can.

We should also keep reminding them that we are watching, and that we expect them to take this action.

[ixion]

12. yep, every American should be... why aren't they, that is the big question

how far does this have to go before we say enough is enough?

[kentuck]

13. I don't know...

It blows my mind!

[The2ndWheel]

14. We're too specialized to be outraged

Fine, people can be upset and go to the polls. Well that's still a specialized event.

That's what we vote people to represent us for. It's their job. Just like we all have our own jobs. We all live in our own worlds, which would be alright, if we still lived in a small scale world. But instead we live in an increasingly global village, and so we need to be specialized for that to work.

We're a small scale species living in an artifically large scale world.

[Gregorian]

17. That's a brilliant observation.

In one hundred years, look at what we've become. More sophisticated, convenient, and yet more distanced and less well rounded in our abilities. I honestly think you have stated something of great importance that goes almost unnoticed.

[The2ndWheel]

22. Well you're far too kind

Just a way of seeing the world I happen to agree with after reading various thoughts and thinking about it myself. Even then, the act of reading a language created to distance ourselves doesn't quite do the problems justice.

Unfortunately the process has been going on for thousands of years. That's why it's basically impossible for us to stop voluntarily. It's part of everything we do. We label this and that, we name that and this, we number those and these. All part of our(the royal one) need for control.

But thanks, I try.

[indepat]

16. The type of Americans who would not be outraged are the ones who love a fascist dictatorship far

more than they loved this former Republic. :evilfrown:

Edited for context

[ktlyon]

18. well that is another federal rap, mail tampering is taken seriously

just go ahead George, open someones mail without a warrant
the list of violations just grows and grows and grows
he really is full of himself

[Doctor_J]

19. They should be, but hate radio still has a grip on the US

it's unclear whether we can wrest the country back from them peacefully. The next year or so will be telling.

[Orsino]

21. I dunno. Is this a trick question?

:mad: :grr:

[BluePatriot]

23. Because we are conditioned to accept authority

...and to believe that authority figures "know what is best" and will "look out for us." It's the point of our entire school system...then, when you get your job, that conditioning is abused by the entire corporate system. If people meekly sit around at their jobs taking more and more crap over the years out of fear, gradually, the government can get away with the same thing. Sort of a frog in a pot of boiling water effect, with the temperature slowly being raised.

Fortunately, the brainwashing didn't take with many of us. :)

[blues90]

24. I've been outraged since 2000

Now there is so much gone bad that it's an endless stream on all fronts for me . And this seems to continue even with massive revolt .

I am trying to figure out if I had control what I would try to fix first and I don;t know .