HOLY MOLEY! Bush Signs Patriot Act Addendum Saying HE IS ABOVE THE LAW!! >

[Dr. Jones]

SOMEBODY IMPEACH THIS BASTARD!!

Congress might has well just pack up and leave DC...they are now officially obsolete.

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  March 24, 2006

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.

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."

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

[valerief]

1. It's official! We're a monarchy.

[MADem]

9. Dictatorship, more like

If we were a monarchy, we could at least look forward to the reign of rockin' Queen Jenna in our lifetimes....free beer for everyone!

[Poiuyt]

52. At first he was just a Fascist. Now he is a Fascist dictator

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

[katty]

66. Dictatorship-this is what bush wanted and kept saying...it's official

[Roland99]

17. Theocratic plutocracy served up on a Diebold dish.

edit for more accuracy.

:)

[valerief]

19. PNACracy?

[Roland99]

25. With a side of "AMEN! PRAISE JAY-SUS!"

[valerief]

31. PNAC--Put Neocons Above the Constitution

It's definitely a PNACracy. With that side of Jaysus.

*edited to correct spelling*

[Chimichurri]

2. It doesn't end.

Where is congres? Oh, nevermind :/

[jrw14125]

3. Mr. Feingold, where are you?!

[electropop]

27. If he were to slaughter and eat babies and puppies on live TV,

would our "leaders" issue a mild censure? Would they say anything at all?

[Radio_Guy]

54. Forget Feingold

Checks and balances have just been thrown out the window. His next step will be to fire all members of Congress that disagrees with him.

[yourout]

4. Again and again and again and again.

Broken record

[rodeodance]

5. lots of discussion here in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2185459&mesg_id=2186145

[Initech]

6. We need to impeach this asshole. Pronto.

Feingold, get those articles done! Get them out on the senate floor! NOW!!!

[wordpix2]

13. could not agree more---the more Congress sits on hands, the more violating

their laws * knows he can get away with.

[Initech]

21. Of course, the GOP controlled senate acts like they dont give a shit...

All the more reason.

[EVDebs]

38. We need a Democratically controlled Congress in '06 or we can look forward

to desaparacidos in the United States, just like they did in Argentina's Dirty War.

[ladjf]

57. In order to win in 2006, we will have to overcome the rigged

voting systems. I don't see enough being done about the corrupt process. We can only hope that the Democratic majority is large enough to overcome a certain number of rigged machines and other processes. It will be a "crap shoot", something that should never be the case in a democracy.

President Carter said that the 2004 elections in the U.S. did not meet even the most minimum of international standards. The elections were impossible to audit with accuracy. (paraphrase)

[schmuls]

7. he said before that he is going to put addendums in whenever he

wants to! No surprise here.

[underpants]

8. Not only is that just flat out amazing-think about this for a second

Do THEY really think that anyone buys that W came to this decision? That W sat down and thought out how HE saw this law?

This is amazing.

[wisteria]

10. Isn't this the little trick Alito told him about and instructed him on

how to use it. I believe Bush can add an addendum to any act or piece of legislation he wants thus given him powers above the law. :grr: :grr:

[EVDebs]

41. Both Alito and Roberts worked in the Reagan admin on ExOrders

that allowed for suspension of the Constitution. Remember Rex84 and Ollie North ? Guess who was approving those Executive Orders and writing about 'constitutionality' of it all ?

Bush can do it all now with just a signature on paper now. Martial law.

FEMA Executive Orders listed here
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fema_executive_orders.htm

Nowadays though, the ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the DHS Homeland Security division that will handle most of this since the governmental reorganization

see About ICE and more on its mission at

http://www.ice.gov/graphics/about/index.htm

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for identifying and shutting down vulnerabilities in the nation’s border, economic, transportation and infrastructure security."

[wordpix2]

11. I just wrote Joementum and Dodd in CT to let them know---write your

reps, please!

I pointed out that Clinton was impeached over a bj but Bush is allowed to get away with violations of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. I challenged them to DO SOMETHING and asked Joe to stop kissing Bush.

[Nailzberg]

12. I'm outta here. Sweden here I come.

They're taking away our privacy rights, but the Presidency has privacy rights that he doesn't need to be kept in check by Congress? The Constitution means nothing if Bush gets away with this.

[anarch]

14. oh, yay. so the Enabling Act is now fully in place, huh?

That rat bastard nazi fuck. Above the law, is he? Well not for long.

[Nothing Without Hope]

***See also this LBN thread on the Boston Globe report on this outrage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2185459
thread title (3-24-06 LBN): Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
Boston Globe. Excerpt: “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. … 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.’ “
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement

[BuyingThyme]

15. Another issue for Democratic "leaders" to run from.

Run, Harry, run.

If you see Nancy, tell here we said hi.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. My avatar says it all n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. The Bushies are stepping of the pace of their Nazification now that

Roberts and Scalito are on the Supreme Court. If I were a Christian I would be praying for the safety of the surviving sane Supreme Court judges.

[msatty99]

55. Is there historical precedent for a president doing this?

I have never heard of such a thing. What does the 'addendum' actually say? Has any
president ever tried this before.

I wouldn't think it would have any effect, legally, other than to
create something to litigate over....briefly.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

68. some history on Executive orders

Theodore Roosevelt virtually invented the executive order. Until then, most presidents didn't issue executive orders. Roosevelt issued well over a thousand. It was the equivalent of today's presidential signing statement.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/23125.html

Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements. <1>

To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the legal relevance of signing statements. In one 1989 decision, the federal appeals court in New York took account of a statement signed by President Ronald Reagan in connection with a sentencing law because "the executive branch participated in the negotiation of the compromise legislation." This view is somewhat similar to the use of legislative history.

Other courts have said or suggested that presidential statements, as one of them put it, "lack persuasive authority."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_signing_statement#U.S._Presidential_usage

[Sydnie]

20. Where is HIS party? Don't they see this slippery slope and fear

it too?

Well, the house won't be causing too many signing statements to be written this year. They won't be there most of the time. Oversight is dead.

[aden_nak]

22. I don't consider myself bound to pay for plasma televisions.

Though I'll have to test this theory to see how it works out in practice.

[Burried News]

23. All hail the Unitary Executive

[mzmolly]

24. Note the rules he laid out for HIMSELF.

"impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties"

National security is but one so called blip that doesn't mean shineola.

The key portions: "impair foreign relations" = Dubai or any other money making scheme they want to conjure up, "the deliberative process/performance of the executive" = anyone examining his job performance/statements on the record, constitutional duties = as determined by "the executive."

In other words, he is officially not accountable for anything, he can do what he wants and it's against the law for anyone to discuss/examine what he "the executive" does?

[EFerrari]

43. Since when does the Executive interpret the law?

And, how could our foreign relations be MORE impaired than he has already made them?

[EVDebs]

48. See post #41 eom

[BrklynLiberal]

26. Slippery slope.. We are there...

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

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. Just confirms...again...that we've been in a dictatorship since 12-2000.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. This man has lost his marbles.

[JudyM]

30. "The deliberative process of the Executive" is already seriously impaired.

:eyes:

[Marie26]

32. Um, doesn't this end our democracy? nt

[centristo]

33. he's above the law alright,

and beneath my contempt.

[alfredo]

34. My letter to the editor on this subject

Today we learned that when Bush signed Patriot Act II his signing statement declared that the oversight rules are "not binding." When McCain's anti torture law was signed, Bush's signing statement said that the law doesn't apply to him and that he could continue using torture.

Why doesn't Bush go ahead and say that the Constitution does not apply to him. Why kill democracy with a thousand cuts. Just go ahead and declare himself absolute ruler. The American people don't seem to care if they are free or not.

Back in Dec 18 2000 Bush said he wanted to be "the Dictator." Just go ahead and do it. A few of us will complain, but we can be named enemy combatants or terrorists and put away for life and never heard from again. It worked for Pinochet.

[w8liftinglady]

47. excellent letter..

[alfredo]

67. Thank you.

It's time we stop being nice. It's time we tell it like we see it.

[annabanana]

76. I hope you don't mind.. I swiped much of your letter

and sent it to my local rag...

[alfredo]

80. That's fine. What part of the country do you live in?

I want to make sure you didn't send it to the same paper I am sending mine to. If it is, no problem, it is the message that is important.

[annabanana]

83. long island (don't worry, I checked your profile!).. . . n/t

[alfredo]

84. I forget about the profiles.

[young_at_heart]

35. You'd think even the Republicans in Congress wouldn't be happy

What's happened to my country? Will it EVER come back?

[slide to the left]

36. I thought its was the judiciary's job

to interperet the law.

[Marie26]

75. It is. It was

But w/the signing statement, Bush can "write" a new law, "interpret" what the law means, & decide how to "execute" the law. All three branches of government, combined in one person. I think that's called a dictatorship.

[Dora]

37. Damnit people, don't you understand what this means?

The Constitution is a mere technicality! It's nothing but Guidelines to Policy and Procedure, and guidelines can be changed as the situation warrants it.

:sarcasm:

[spuddonna]

58. Reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean...

"...You must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

This is insane...

[BeHereNow]

74. And just LOOK at those Democratic spring to action to save us!

NOT.
BHN

[Joanne98]

78. But its the Dems that treat the constitution as a living document

The CONS are strict constructionists! BARF!

[indie_voter]

39. WTF?!! CONGRESS WAKE THE HELL UP. n/t

[EFerrari]

40. A lawyer might call this "evidence". n/t

[phusion]

42. How does this asshole get by with this?

:grr:

[Justice Is Comin]

44. There aren't enough swear words

in the dictionary to describe this vermin bottom feeding slug.

[foreverdem]

45. So, then...

Congress might as well just pack up and go home. They are clearly not needed for anything, since * is above the law, and will make each and every decision, ruling, and law on his own, with no oversight.

I cannot believe this day has come.

[Callalily]

46. I'm just heartsick!

There's virtually nothing left of our freedoms. This regime has systematically, singlehandedly eroded everything that was good about our country. This truly is sad, sad day! :cry:

[Imagevision]

49. Bush: Leading to dictatorship like Hitler & Stalin

A government in which a single leader or party exercises absolute control over all citizens and every aspect of their lives.

Government by a single person or by a junta or other group that is not responsible to the people or their elected representatives.
http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship?method=8

[Rocknrule]

50. "And in order to ensure the continuing stability of America,

the United States will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire!"
:scared:

[buddysmellgood]

51. Oohhh, (whinney voice) I don't know if we should censure (pant wetting)

I think we need to wait and see (hand wringing) We don't have enough information

spineless asshats

[Dr. Jones]

53. Yeah, and meanwhile, while these asshats pontificate,

our democracy is being destroyed right in front of our eyes.

Somebody better wake up and smell the coffee - I fear it is already too late dammit.

[buddysmellgood]

69. My gut feels the same. I hope it's wrong.

[Joanne98]

79. BWHAHAHA!

[Solly Mack]

56. He has issued over 500 signing statements so far

Doncha wonder which other laws he has decided to disregard?

[eppur_se_muova]

59. Why should these "signing statements" have any legitimacy whatever?

They might provide interesting footnotes to discussions of the laws, but there is no reason under the Constitution why they should carry any legal weight at all. The law is what Congress wrote. **'s signature (when required) gives it the force of law. **'s comments are just mindless graffiti.

His tame lawyers may have come up with some theoretical basis on which to claim these statements have some inherent authority, but there's not the slightest reason they shouldn't be ignored in enforcing the law. Any legal challenge would be thrown out in the lower courts.

[sendero]

62. They don't..

... a signing statement has no force of law whatsoever. Bush can add any ridiculous crap he wants to add to a signing statement, it doesn't change the meaning of the law one iota.

Bush is playing a game of chicken that he will eventually lose in a big way.

[Marie26]

73. It would under the "unitary executive" theory.

Just look at Bush's signing statements; he makes sure to include the phrase "unitary executive" in each one. I think they are hoping they can appoint enough crazy judges who will eventually approve this theory. Under this theory, Congress cannot limit the President's executive powers in any way. So, the argument may be: Congress cannot limit or control Executive branch power. Therefore, any provision that purports to restrict the executive branch is unconstitutional. When signing a Congressional bill into law, the president may include a signing statment stating that a provision is invalid because it restricts the the Executive Branch. As head of the Executive Branch, the president's interpretation will have binding force.

Alito was appointed because he wrote a memo about the "unitary executive" back in the 80's. They want this, bad. If they can get the Supreme Court to approve these signing statements as law, they've officially hit the jackpot.

Signing stat. on Dep. of Defense, Emergency Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina, & Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006

"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 , ... 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."

"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."

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 ... the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

Bush's Signing statement on the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act:

"Many provisions of the Act deal with the conduct of United States intelligence activities and the defense of the Nation, which are two of the most important functions of the Presidency. The executive branch shall construe the Act, including amendments made by the Act, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to conduct the Nation's foreign relations, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and to supervise the unitary executive branch, which encompass the authority to conduct intelligence operations."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041217-15.html

I just love how it says that Congress "purports to prohibit" an action, but that they're going to do it anyway under Bush's executive powers. They're basically telling you which laws they're planning to violate.

[Joanne98]

81. The Urinetary Executive is more like it.

If Bush doesn't like a law he just saz "Piss on it. I'm doing it anyway".

[progressoid]

60. Why do they even bother writing these fucking laws?

[jsamuel]

61. son of a b&tch... Accountability

[mmonk]

63. Yes, dictatorship.

That's when someone in power is above the laws of the country.

[Turn CO Blue]

64. "What are we doing tonight, Cheney?"

"The same thing we do every night, Bushie; try to take over the world."

My only comfort, such as it is, is that a Dem President will have all these powers too someday and that all these Republican heads will EXPLODE if/when that happens!





(with nod to Pinkie and the Brain.)

[fooj]

65. Mr. President...you BROKE THE LAW. Now, get the hell out of OUR HOUSE!

Peace.

[Bluebear]

70. DICTATOR. nt

[Generator]

71. Call Katie Couric STAT!

I'm sure she'd love to explain why it's the Democrats fault.

What's sad is that I'm no longer surprised. THE DUDE announced his intentions back with the "I'll torture if I need to" anti-torture bill. Oh and Alito. Oh and breaking the law with spying in country. The president has jumped the shark and it's a blip in a newspaper but nowhere else.

[Marie26]

72. Well, if they impeach Bush,

couldn't he just add a signing statement to the Art. of Impeachment that states that the impeachment is invalid because it impairs national security? :rofl: or do I mean :cry:

[earth mom]

77. This sh*t sends chills down my spine.

:scared:

[KamaAina]

82. You mean he's not above the law?

:sarcasm:

Sure must seem like it to him. Get caught with coke, get a slap on the wrist. Go AWOL, slap on the wrist. Lie to Congress about WMD, slight decline in poll numbers. So what's the big deal about this? :sarcasm: