Bush Administration: Above The Law?

[jeo4]

Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power _ from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

Source: The Associated Press

[Lynn7]

It's all a big card game isnt it? I guess that's why it is good to have the three branches of government so that no one part has all the power. The answer to these questions would have to go to the courts I guess.

[TheDeadWalk]

I love how they say Andrew Jackson did it, like that's something to be proud about.

[Lynn7]

They say Clinton did it too which also is not saying much :)

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
They say Clinton did it too which also is not saying much :)


Lynn, you'd really better watch it...PETA's gonna go Nazi on your ass if you keep beating this dead horse.



~darchangel~

[someguy]

I say it's fair game. We harp on Bush, she harps on Clinton.

[Vong]

I say it's fair game. We harp on Bush, she harps on Clinton.

Who cares, they both are to blame for horrible shit done to their own countries and abroad. I don't think it's possible to name one US President, or any political leader in the world for that matter, who didn't have some opposition or hateful nature directed towards them.

The fact is that George Bush is the president here and now, and is to blame for anything that happens under his watch. Harping on past presidents for doing the same is just as darchangel says, beating a dead horse.

I think Lynn is attacking Clinton because she wants to show that even the Democrats can be blamed for stupid or destructive things.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Vong
The fact is that George Bush is the president here and now, and is to blame for anything that happens under his watch. Harping on past presidents for doing the same is just as darchangel says, beating a dead horse.




Yeah...I mean, if you want to blame past presidents for stuff, let's not stop with Clinton...damn that useless bastard Grover Cleveland!!! ;)



~darchangel~

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's all a big card game isnt it? I guess that's why it is good to have the three branches of government so that no one part has all the power. The answer to these questions would have to go to the courts I guess.


Well that was the plan. . . until all three branches got taken over by the same party that all seem to be in lockstep idealogically with each other, or just refuse to speak out against their respective party's actions because of political aspirations.

[Thrizzle]

Yea maybe Jackson and Clinton did it, but they sure as hell didnt do it several hundred times. I recall reading that the figure is around 750....

We all know this administration thinks it IS the law, its just a matter of what we do about it.

[Vong]

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

One word: dictatorship

[JohnTheHenchman]

Hey guys remember when Lincoln went above the law and freed the slaves, lol

[Lynn7]

President Bush feels he is trying to save the country from terrorism so he is getting legal advice about how far he can go in all of this. I realize there are some dangers with this kind of stuff because we do have to be careful that what one president means for good is not used later by someone who does not have the best interests of the country at heart. And I know many people feel that Bush does not have the best interests of the country at heart- they think he just wants big oil to line his pockets.

I do trust in the balance of powers and even if the powers are currently in the hands of one party that can be changed every two years in voting so things can't get too out of balance. I think the reason one party has been in charge is because the Dems have gotten so far out of the mainstream in the past few years. I see some moderation from some Dems lately so maybe they are finally getting it. Although Hillary is trying to be a centrist on some issues and she is getting booed for it so it is not an easy thing to do. (I don't beleive Hill is really a centrist though- I think she just knows that is the only way she could ever hope to win the presidency).

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
President Bush feels he is trying to save the country from terrorism so he is getting legal advice about how far he can go in all of this. I realize there are some dangers with this kind of stuff because we do have to be careful that what one president means for good is not used later by someone who does not have the best interests of the country at heart. And I know many people feel that Bush does not have the best interests of the country at heart- they think he just wants big oil to line his pockets.

I do trust in the balance of powers and even if the powers are currently in the hands of one party that can be changed every two years in voting so things can't get too out of balance. I think the reason one party has been in charge is because the Dems have gotten so far out of the mainstream in the past few years. I see some moderation from some Dems lately so maybe they are finally getting it. Although Hillary is trying to be a centrist on some issues and she is getting booed for it so it is not an easy thing to do. (I don't beleive Hill is really a centrist though- I think she just knows that is the only way she could ever hope to win the presidency).

1) If Bush is trying to save us from terrorism, maybe he should start with finding Bin Laden.

2) If Bush had the best interests of this country at heart, he would have helped Katrina victims in a timely manner.

3) The Dems aren't the ones trying to ban gay marriage and flag burning as a distraction to cover their gigantic mistakes with the war in Iraq, so I don't see where you think how they're the ones getting out of the mainstream.

4) I'm glad that crafty Hillary couldn't fool you with her thin veneer of centrism in order to trick you into voting for her, Lynn. :rolleyes:


~darchangel~

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
President Bush feels he is trying to save the country from terrorism so he is getting legal advice about how far he can go in all of this.

Yeah, and its the wrong advice.

Example: Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the president couldn't kept the detainees of Guantanamo for an indefinite period of time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales goes and tells the president that he could. And it doesn't stop there with Gonzalez, so you can imagine how many other people are whispering legal contradictions in the president's ear.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I realize there are some dangers with this kind of stuff because we do have to be careful that what one president means for good is not used later by someone who does not have the best interests of the country at heart. And I know many people feel that Bush does not have the best interests of the country at heart- they think he just wants big oil to line his pockets.


You know what, I'll be the first to say it, I'm sure he does have the best interest of the country at heart (while simultaneously getting money for corporations he's helped out). But everyone always has a different idea of what's good for what. . . . . as we already know from posting in this forum. ;)

As far as history has shown, the biggest fuck-ups usually started off as good intentions. And the federal government has a lovely history of making laws and setting precedents that weighed more heavily on good intentions than common sense and forward thinking, then hastily made those good intentions into law before really concentrating on fine-tuning those laws before they went into affect.

[echo_bravo]

1) If Bush is trying to save us from terrorism, maybe he should start with finding Bin Laden.

Bin Laden is worthless now. He wont even show his face. He is probably in some cave in the outskirts of Pak.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Bin Laden is worthless now. He wont even show his face. He is probably in some cave in the outskirts of Pak.

1. He's made repeated threats to America and has warned of new attacks (and believe, this guy has an unplesant knack of keeping his word on these issues).

2. He attacked America, starting the War On Terror. Let me repeat this again: HE'S WHY WE'RE FIGHTING OVERSEAS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

3. He's one of the top men in Al-Qaeda, the people we're supposed to be after in the aforementioned War On Terror.

4. Most importantly: he murdered a whooping 3,000 American within a matter of hours. What you're saying is kinda like saying that if Timothy McVeigh hadn't been caught after a few years of hiding, we should simply stop trying to catch him it's too hard and it's not like he's currently killing people at the moment. Not to mention the fact that both men's victims won't be avenged.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Hey guys remember when Lincoln went above the law and freed the slaves, lol

I don't.

[echo_bravo]

Yeah I see what you are saying MacReady.

[jeo4]

ABA: Bush violating Constitution

Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy

Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.

ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.

The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.

Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.

"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."

Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.

The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

Source: CNN.com

[jeo4]

Even thought I typically post Lou Dobbs rants in his own thread, this pertains to the subject at hand.

Dobbs: Why is the president ignoring our laws?

Bush, feds flout the Constitution by finding ways around laws
By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Wednesday, July 26, 2006; Posted: 9:56 a.m. EDT (13:56 GMT)

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- With upraised right hand and left hand on the Bible, each of our presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, has solemnly sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated that oath by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.

A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

The ABA asserts that signing statements cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto and that such an assertion of presidential power amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court already has ruled unconstitutional.

The matter will likely be resolved in court. But it stands as a metaphor for a 21st century America that is no longer secure in the claim to be a nation of laws.

The federal government is failing to enforce our laws on a wide range of issues. Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is clearly a treaty, have not been approved by two-thirds of the Senate as required by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.

That clause states the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." And why has the Senate not been required to approve these treaties? Because the last three presidents have claimed these trade deals are executive agreements rather than treaties.

But if these so-called free-trade agreements are not to be considered treaties, then they are clearly within the power of Congress, not the president. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations." But Congress has given up its exclusive constitutional authority to negotiate and regulate trade agreements by ceding "fast-track authority" to the executive branch.

The president's fast-track authority is set to expire next year, more than 30 years after its passage. It is no coincidence that the United States has now posted a trade deficit for 30 consecutive years.

The federal government is also undermining the rule of law in this country when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws and securing borders and ports.

The Bush administration in its first four years was responsible for 318 fines against employers who hired illegal workers, an average of fewer than 80 each year. That's down from 5,587 fines against illegal employers during the eight years of the Clinton administration, according to the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, an average of 698 each year. And the problem is getting worse; in 2004 only three employers received fines for illegal hiring.

Work site arrests have fallen even more drastically under this president. From 1995 to 1998, there were between 10,000 and 18,000 work site arrests of illegal aliens each year. But during the Bush administration, work site arrests fell to just 159 in 2004.

Apprehensions along the border averaged 1.05 million from fiscal year 2001 to 2004, according to the independent, progressive group Third Way, down from 1.52 million from 1996 to 2000. Border apprehensions have plummeted more than 30 percent, despite a doubling in the number of Border Patrol agents over the past decade and the rising number of attempted crossings.

It is not only the federal government that had diminished our claim to be a nation of laws. More than 70 U.S. cities, including New York, Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, have set up "sanctuary" policies that offer safe haven from the law to illegal aliens and their families.

"It most certainly is a blatant violation of the law," says Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado. "There is a provision of the 1996 Immigration Act that is very clear: It says states and localities can't do this. The unfortunate thing is there are no teeth in it."

As Abraham Lincoln said, if bad laws exist they should "be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed." President Lincoln devoutly believed that rule of law assured that ours would continue to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

And that should be the first demand of every American today.

Source: CNN.com

[jeo4]

So now that's three different articles about this subject in the last two weeks, one of which states that the ABA openly disagrees with the President, even questioning the survival of Democracy in America. Does anyone think that the next President and others beyond him(her) will:

A. Repeal the laws created by this administration?

B. Revise these laws to exclude the exceptions made for President Bush and his administration?

or

C. Leave the laws in place, possibly abusing them or revising them further to create more power for other administrations in the future?

[jeo4]

*Looks at watch*

...


*Looks around for other schmoes*


...


Anyone?

[Tuukka]

Option C.

...I just think that regardless of who is in power, they probably like to make it as effortless as possible for them to practice their policy. So the more power they have, the better off they are.

They will close these loopholes only if there is a big public uproar. But at least at the moment I don't see the voters paying any attention to this issue.

[jeo4]

I agree. I think the voting public is too ignorant of what really goes on. And much of that ignorance, sadly, is by choice.

[someguy]

Jeo, you're definitely right. The main issues come down to something worth a sound bite on the news, or as the Republicans mainly see it, something involving a moral choice. That's why in 2004 the main election issue involved things like gay marriage instead of the horrible deficit and issues like this. I believe a topic was made on this before though, but I remember it not really being touched upon in discussion either.

For those who don't want to read the articles, basically the president is making a statement on provisions in almost every law passed saying that he has the right to bypass them in the favour of things like 'national security.' As we all know, he has illegally wiretapped people and gotten phone records of people in the country recorded for national security purposes so who knows what he might do in the name of protecting the country.

Remember that he's done this 800 times, and all the other presidents combined have done it only 600 times. This includes during the cold war when there were possibly communist spies and threats involving nuclear weapons. If the presidents could control themselves in times like that, why not today?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by someguy
Jeo, you're definitely right. The main issues come down to something worth a sound bite on the news, or as the Republicans mainly see it, something involving a moral choice. That's why in 2004 the main election issue involved things like gay marriage instead of the horrible deficit and issues like this. I believe a topic was made on this before though, but I remember it not really being touched upon in discussion either.

For those who don't want to read the articles, basically the president is making a statement on provisions in almost every law passed saying that he has the right to bypass them in the favour of things like 'national security.' As we all know, he has illegally wiretapped people and gotten phone records of people in the country recorded for national security purposes so who knows what he might do in the name of protecting the country.

Remember that he's done this 800 times, and all the other presidents combined have done it only 600 times. This includes during the cold war when there were possibly communist spies and threats involving nuclear weapons. If the presidents could control themselves in times like that, why not today?

Again, I agree completely. And statistically, you are right on the mark. It disturbs me that any political party could have such complete dominance over others the way this administration and congress have.

Meanwhile, the economy is sagging (in spite of corporations and their respective fatcats making a bundle on Wall Street), healthcare is skyrocketing, gas prices are the worst they've ever been in US history (Bush is an oil man, after all), and jobs are evaporating thanks to both outsourcing and restructuring of corporations. I am genuinely afraid for this country's future.

[Jon Lyrik]

But jeo4, look at the unemployment rate and growth rate LOL!!!111

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I don't.

We weren't even born that's why!

[jeo4]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Hey guys remember when Lincoln went above the law and freed the slaves, lol

You can't possibly expect to compare the freeing of slaves (which is only the beginning of equal rights for a long abused group of people) to some 800 infractions by the current administration for nothing more than a loophole to more power for that office all under the guise of "national security". They are nowhere near the same.

Remember this paragraph?

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

And the first story here included this paragraph:

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

How do you equate freeing slaves with an overt abuse of power?

[MacReady]

Breaking a stupid law that deprives U.S. citizens of their liberty in order to free American slaves is righteous. Breaking a smart law in order to deprive U.S. citizens of their liberty so you can enslave Americans in a crypto-dicatorship is very un-righteous This should be obvious to pretty much everyone.

[JohnTheHenchman]

But yeah I can compare it. Was it an actual abuse of power? No, because he did it for the right reasons. Did he go above and beyond what he was supposed to do as president, absolutely.

What you're telling me is that the ends justify the means. Ok, I can accept that. All I'm saying is we turn the other way when illegal things are done with noble causes.

[TheDeadWalk]

When did Lincoln free the slaves?

To my knowledge all he had was the Emancipation Proclamation, and all that said was that slaves in the confederate states were "declared free", even though the Union had no power to enforce that law, and just wanted slaves to uprise and help the North win the war and/or cause confederate states to stop succession in order to keep slaves.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Oh so he didn't do something that he had no power to?

my bad:rolleyes:

[TheDeadWalk]

But he didn't free the slaves though, lol.

And I'll see your rolleyes :rolleyes:

And raise you five

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
All I'm saying is we turn the other way when illegal things are done with noble causes.

We approve one abuse of a loophole by one person if he abuses it for a good purpose which benefits us. We disapprove 800 abuses of loopholes by one person if they are for the disbenefit of us.

Maybe you fail to see logic in that, but it's pretty easy logic to understand, really.

There is a rather big difference between numbers "1" and "800".

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
But he didn't free the slaves though, lol.

And I'll see your rolleyes :rolleyes:

And raise you five

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So he didn't do something he had no power to do, Mr. Semantics?

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
So he didn't do something he had no power to do, Mr. Semantics?

No, he just didn't do something that you claimed he did, Mr. Sentence.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Well I bet you feel big now!

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
You don't know me



Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I never said that