Its no secret that the Bush administration has little or no desire to follow the laws or constitutional protections afforded us in this country.

Heres an interesting read from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/).

Swear to god man! Donnie Baker and the forefathers where right in making the broadly interpretable "right to bear arms" provision of our constitution!

And this is why!!!! they always knew and belived the old Axiom "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutlely " and that no matter how good a system they started the potential for it to be twisted would always be there!

LMAO

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.

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.

The single funniest thing I have read in a long time.

if a village is missing it's idiot why did America vote him in to office? lame post


One would need to ask Diebold.

The single funniest thing I have read in a long time.
I imagine it does look funny to someone who strips it of its context (or simply fails to understand it).

If you don't see the blatant stupidity in that op-ed.. especially in that leading paragraph, I seriously over-judged your intelligence. Sorry.

So then him and GWB have something in common after all.

LMAO



The single funniest thing I have read in a long time.

Yeah its funny...this is the part that came after what you quoted and bolded:

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 article was not an Op-Ed piece it was a 7 page news article.

Then theres stuff like this:

Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels


Just to keep things fair and balanced I have also pulled this up:

The Senate Acquits President Clinton

By Peter Baker and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 13, 1999; Page A1

The United States Senate acquitted William Jefferson Clinton yesterday on charges that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice to hide sexual indiscretions with a onetime White House intern, permitting the 42nd president to complete the remaining 708 days of his term.

After a tumultuous year of scandal that tested the Constitution and tried the nation's patience, neither of the two articles of impeachment brought by the House garnered a simple majority, much less the two-thirds necessary to convict Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I alleging perjury was defeated on a 45 to 55 vote at 12:21 p.m. Just 18 minutes later, Article II charging obstruction failed on a 50 to 50 tie. Five Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in supporting full acquittal.


Read more here! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm)

If you don't see the blatant stupidity in that op-ed.. especially in that leading paragraph, I seriously over-judged your intelligence. Sorry.
Fortunately, you've made it clear that your ability to judge intelligence is severely lacking. No need to apologize, it's the nature of your programming.

The article was not an Op-Ed piece it was a 7 page news article.Now ^^^ is the funniest thing I've read in a awhile now.

This is a serious subject guys, deserving loads of thread space... but not from this op-ed. But with mods now acting like this...

I imagine it does look funny to someone who strips it of its context (or simply fails to understand it).
Fortunately, you've made it clear that your ability to judge intelligence is severely lacking. No need to apologize, it's the nature of your programming.

... I don't expect much of that in the future.

Jesus ladies...

Anyway, if I'm forced to form an opinion on this one, Boston Globe can suck my nuts. Let me read three pages and require me to register. Suck'em, I say!

What makes them think I'm dying to read THEIR friggen web page and willing to give them my email (even if it is just my spammaddy). They are not worthy!

As for the subject at hand, is Bush trying to take power away from Congress or is Congress trying to take power from Bush? I'm confused. :(

Akipt, if you're going to allege the article is, for all intents and purposes, an op-ed not worth taking seriously, and if you're going to allege that it's stupid and that anyone who doesn't see that is likewise stupid, you may as well put some effort -- even 5 or 6 lines -- into substantiating your allegations. At the very least, we know that the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment and Patriot Act "compromises" were both effectively nullified by Bush's signing statements. That was clear long before this article emerged.

I think its very easy to attack the article by taking this line of it WAY out of context:

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.

Taken out of context I will admit it looks ridiculous, however when looking at it within the context of the article it becaomes a very scary thing that borders on dictatorial leadership.

It makes one wonder what the motivation is for doing the nations business in this way. It is nothing but deceptive.

I made light of blatantly partisan tripe, and unless you're the author of it, you need not have gotten your feathers ruffled. Instead, you're the first (either you or L2 are these days) to accuse me of lacking intelligence (or "understanding", as if that's not condescending enough.)

/shrug

So are you going to be fair and call Tranz's intelligence into question as well? He nailed my point perfectly with......is Bush trying to take power away from Congress or is Congress trying to take power from Bush? I'm confused.

I highly suspect the author of that article and many here don't know (or care of) the difference.

I made light of blatantly partisan tripe, and unless you're the author of it, you need not have gotten your feathers ruffled. Instead, you're the first (either you or L2 are these days) to accuse me of lacking intelligence (or "understanding", as if that's not condescending enough.)

/shrug

So are you going to be fair and call Tranz's intelligence into question as well? He nailed my point perfectly with...

I highly suspect the author of that article and many here don't know (or care of) the difference.

I hate to say it, but it's a partisan tactic to attack the intelligence of people that don't agree with you. If you can't back up what you say, you can just call the people that don't agree with you stupid.
For Liberals, its a way to demonstrate that we need more funding in Education.
For Conservatives, its a wasy to show no matter how much money you put into public education, it will fail.
It's all tactics.
But I think the Congress and Senate are the spawners of more evil than the President is ever capable of.
No matter who is elected, they only get 8 years in office.
Strom Thurmond retired from the Senate in 2002 at the end of his eighth term. He served 47 years and five months in the Senate. He also was the oldest person to serve in Congress, turning 100 on December 5, 2002, just a month before his retirement from the legislative body.
I mean COME ON!!!! This man was a career politician!!!! How much evil did he unleash over the years?

Here goes Arlen Specter acting all partisan...


Specter, Target of Republican Revolt, Regains Maverick Stride
May 2 (Bloomberg) --

Arlen Specter was undaunted when a fellow U.S. senator accidentally struck him in the face with a squash racket, drawing blood and requiring stitches to close the gash. He demanded a rematch and showed up for it wearing a hockey helmet, ready to do battle.

The Pennsylvania Republican, who has survived a brain tumor, heart surgery and lymphatic cancer, is showing political resilience as well.

Faced with a revolt by more conservative fellow Republicans that almost denied him the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship last year, he pledged to fight for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Today, at age 76, Specter has emerged as a leading critic of the administration's anti- terrorist domestic eavesdropping program. He is again demonstrating the maverick qualities that have won him five terms in Congress and occasionally enraged other Republicans, and some Democrats, too.

``He is a tough old bird,'' said Virginia Republican Senator John Warner. ``He is kind of like Churchill: `Never, never give in.'''
Specter provoked the rebellion that almost cost him his chairmanship by saying it was ``unlikely'' the Senate would confirm a Supreme Court nominee who would vote to overturn abortion rights.

He delivered on his promise to help win confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees and also got back into Republicans' good graces by helping enact two items on Bush's agenda to overhaul the legal system: restricting personal bankruptcy and class- action lawsuits.

Questioning the Spying

Now, Specter is questioning the legality of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance of suspected terrorists without court warrants. He called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Judiciary Committee and has repeatedly voiced dissatisfaction with what he called the attorney general's refusal to provide answers.

Specter also convened a hearing on a Democratic senator's plan to censure Bush for authorizing the eavesdropping and has proposed a special court to oversee counterintelligence wiretapping and review the legality of the spying. To pressure the president to give lawmakers more details about the surveillance, Specter floated the idea of cutting off the program's funds.
``The party needs somebody to stand up to the president,'' Specter said in an interview in his corner seventh-floor office of the Philip Hart Senate Office Building that overlooks the Supreme Court. ``I do that, by the way, in a very respectful way.''

A Political Independent

Senate Republicans ``have come to accept my independence,'' Specter said. ``People know I am going to vote the way I think is right.''
With Bush's campaign help in 2004, Specter survived a primary challenge from an opponent who called him insufficiently conservative and won a fifth term.
He returned the favor when he spearheaded the president's Supreme Court nominations through the Senate, helping Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito deflect Democratic attempts to paint them as ideologues.
Specter has heard Republican complaining before, particularly after he broke ranks in 1987 and voted with Democrats to defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, the choice of another Republican president, Ronald Reagan.
A senator from a state where registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by more than 580,000, Specter often sides with the opposing party.

Complaining to Reporters

While Republican at times grouse that Specter isn't always loyal, Democrats wish he were more independent.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid complained to reporters in March that Specter votes with Democrats ``whenever you don't need him.''
Specter replied that Reid ``has a selectively short memory.''
``They needed my vote on Bork,'' he said. ``They needed my vote on veterans' benefits. I could go on and on and on.''

National Journal, a Washington-based magazine that analyzes the voting patterns of lawmakers, placed Specter near the center of the ideological spectrum in 2005.

Specter's performance as Judiciary Committee chairman has given him ``more running room and it made it harder'' for Senate Republicans to ``call him a Democrat or whatever is the most pejorative thing they could say about him,'' said Delaware Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr., a member of the committee.

Questioning Anita Hill

In 1991, Specter earned the enmity of many Democrats, particularly women, for his aggressive questioning of Anita Hill, who accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Specter's help in deflecting Hill's charges almost cost him Senate re-election in 1992.
Originally a Democrat, Specter was recruited by Philadelphia Republicans in 1965 to be their candidate for district attorney and switched parties after his election.

``I really wanted to bring back the two-party system in Philadelphia,'' he said. ``The Democrats controlled the city in a very corrupt way.''
After a series of political defeats, Specter won his Senate seat in 1980.
Born in 1930 in Kansas, Specter is the son of a Russian- Jewish immigrant who left Ukraine at age 18 and ``walked across the entire European continent, alone, uneducated and destitute, to sail steerage to America,'' according to ``Passion for Truth,'' a 2000 memoir the senator co-wrote. As a youth, Arlen worked summers in his father's junkyard and sold magazines door- to-door.
``It was good training to run for the Senate,'' Specter said.

High Honors

Specter, who won Phi Beta Kappa honors at the University of Pennsylvania and graduated from Yale Law School, was an assistant city prosecutor in Philadelphia before he worked for the Warren Commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Specter devised the so-called magic-bullet theory that said a single bullet passed through Kennedy and struck Texas Governor John Connally.

Known for his dry, caustic style, Specter relishes political combat and debate and has been known to ridicule reporters' questions he regards as silly or ill-informed.

Asked at a news conference last year to predict how long Roberts's confirmation hearings would last, Specter replied: ``Oh, I would expect it to last four days, two hours and 23 minutes.''

Last year, Specter labored through chemotherapy treatments for Hodgkin's disease as he fought unsuccessfully to win Senate passage of a proposed $140 billion fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposure. Specter was rendered almost bald for three months by the treatment that his doctor said left the lymphatic cancer in remission.

``It was easier to get up every day and go to work than stay in bed,'' Specter said

It's amusing that the person who wrote Instead, you're the first (either you or L2 are these days) to accuse me of lacking intelligence is the same who wrote If you don't see the blatant stupidity in that op-ed.. especially in that leading paragraph, I seriously over-judged your intelligence. Sorry.

Now to your point regarding I highly suspect the author of that article and many here don't know (or care of) the difference.
I find it quite clear that the history of this administration is one of removing Congress (and, where they can, SCOTUS) from any equations they feel would reduce central authority. The much ballyhooed "power of the purse" held by Congress is of little use when Congress is kept in the dark regarding executive authority. Congress' legislative authority and the politics of compromise are empty of purpose when the President chooses to ignore it.

Tranz's question was valid in the past but the sheer preponderance of evidence burdens such an inquiry considerably. No, he's not an idiot for asking it -- he did, after all, ask a pointed question rather than just calling the article dumb and moving on.
This is a serious subject guys, deserving loads of thread space... but not from this op-ed.
Then why not present a serious examination of the subject? I can see why you'd want to dismiss the article (though it only fleshes out what's been known for some time now), but calling it a name isn't a credible way to do it.

The central issue (raised in the article but hardly original to it) is that BushCo -- already operating behind a screen of secrecy -- has made it clear that it will follow laws only as far as it sees fit to do so. Operating in secrecy prevents judicial review and congressional oversight -- particularly from this most pliant of congresses. This behavior circumvents our system of checks and balances and therefore endangers Consitution and democracy.

Here goes Arlen Specter acting all partisan...
If only Specter were more walk and less talk. His refusal to swear Gonzales in at a Judicial Committee hearing a few weeks ago was a severe disappointment, particularly since Gonzales' honesty (and, it would seem, perjury) at his nomination hearing was in question.

It's amusing that the person who wrote
It's even more amusing that you're lecturing me on taking things out of context... or perhaps you just don't "understand" it. Go back and look at your first response Thormir.
No, he's not an idiot for asking it -- he did, after all, ask a pointed question rather than just calling the article dumb and moving on. Again, you're like a NYTimes journalist without the power of Google. Hint: Look for the single bolded sentence that I laughed at specifically.. and THEN look at your response to it.

I think its amusing that you are all so easily amused.
And now for something that amuses me:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Cowbell2.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cowbell2.gif)
MORE COWBELL!!!!!!

I love it.

There is no attempt to disprove sources or call into question anything in terms of the work done.. There is just a innate knowledge on akipt's part of what is right and wrong. He doesnt even have to read the article. He just feels the truth.

It is a shame that reality has a well known liberal bias.

Facts are just unfortunate little annoyances that must be overcome by presupposition and by attacking the messenger at every turn. "Liberal Media Bias" is a prozac like term that the far right uses to justify the complete reliance of sources that only agree with their myopic, fantasy land world view. Only read what you want to believe, only listen to those that will say what you want to hear.

The complete collapse of the right-wing ideology is occuring because as in New Orleans after Katrina, the Levees of Denial will eventually crumble under the weight of reality.

This thread now has more comic material than Colbert's last gig.

Sixee reading your post struck me as odd. Just curious

Strom Thurmond retired from the Senate in 2002 at the end of his eighth term. He served 47 years and five months in the Senate. He also was the oldest person to serve in Congress, turning 100 on December 5, 2002, just a month before his retirement from the legislative body

Its usually common courtesy to give credit or put in quotes when you take something and cut and paste it in your response. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/thurmond.obit/

Before you did nothing but cut and paste some dude who i think you are in love with, now i am wondering how much of you stuff if we googled is ripped off from other sources.

Is Sixee Ben Domenech?

Tranz's question was valid in the past but the sheer preponderance of evidence burdens such an inquiry considerably.
I'm actually busy at work tonight or I'd look, but nobody has put forth any preponderance of anything (other than the 7 page article that I was able to only read 3 pages of).

The Globe talked about a couple instances, 1 in 10 they said, that Bush has used his power to editorialize (not sure if that's the right word or not) laws prior to emplementation.

Assuming this article is true and that is what happened, these are bills that Congress has passed. They had a say in them, Bush signed them and they became laws. I believe this is what Akipt was referring to with the bolded statement.

After all the tears and cries of whodunnit, there's still one branch of the government that's yet to have it's say, I believe that will be the Judicial branch. There's still checks and balances ahead guys. In the meantime...

No, he's not an idiot for asking it --
Thanks for leavin' that hangin'... :p

I'm actually busy at work tonight or I'd look, but nobody has put forth any preponderance of anything (other than the 7 page article that I was able to only read 3 pages of).
I wonder if Bush will use this excuse. "Look, nobody has put forth evidence I've done anything wrong (other than that Constitution that I was able to only read the Preamble of)."
Assuming this article is true and that is what happened, these are bills that Congress has passed. They had a say in them, Bush signed them and they became laws.
Yes, Congress -- in a significant demonstration of bipartisanship -- signed off on the McCain Anti-Torture amendment, thus giving their say as the nation's representatives. Bush signed that bill into law. He then, separately, issued a signing statement saying, in essence, that he is justified in ignoring that law as Commander-in-Chief. Bush could have vetoed the law, honestly debated that provision and subjected his judgment to a possible veto override by our elected congressmen but selected this backdoor route instead.
After all the tears and cries of whodunnit, there's still one branch of the government that's yet to have it's say, I believe that will be the Judicial branch. There's still checks and balances ahead guys.
How is someone in a secret torture facility or under surveillance as part of a secret program going to present a case? Years after the fact is no time for a check or balance to find its way into the mix.

“Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.” — General George Washington, speaking to the officer in charge of prisoners during the Revolutionary War.

After all the tears and cries of whodunnit, there's still one branch of the government that's yet to have it's say, I believe that will be the Judicial branch. There's still checks and balances ahead guys. In the meantime...

I must have missed that day in both high school civics and in College Consitutional law, because I recall no mention of Congress passing legislation that was not really law until after the Federal and Supreme Courts gave their opinions on whether or not the President could ignore them, or only follow the elements he agreed with; when did we change our system of government?

The sky is blue and the earth is round. Shocking. Presidents have always executed the laws in accordance with their understanding of the constitution. Next you'll complain that Bush can make recess appointments.

See, for example, here for reference http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

I believe Bush uses signing statements most often for uses 1, 2, and 3 and rarely if ever 4 (create legislative history).

Bush is not required to veto a law and he can (as other Presidents have done) interpret the law in a way that is constitutional.

See, e.g., FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 6 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert. granted, 512 U.S. 1218, cert. dismissed, 513 U.S. 88 (1994) (on other jurisdictional grounds)

"Presidents have often viewed restrictions on their appointment power not to be legally binding. See, e.g., Statement on Signing the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act, 26 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 1930, 1931 (Nov. 28, 1990) (Congressional limitations "do not constrain the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States."); Statement on Signing the National and Community Service Act of 1990, 26 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 1833, 1834 (Nov. 16, 1990); Statement on Signing the Intelligence Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1990, 25 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 1851, 1852 (Nov. 30, 1991). "

In your example, President Bush viewed a statute restricting his CIC powers as not legally binding. Same effect if a statute was passed that required Congressional approval for pardons.

"How is someone in a secret torture facility or under surveillance as part of a secret program going to present a case? Years after the fact is no time for a check or balance to find its way into the mix."

Why do you believe signing statements cannot be challenged as unconstitutional exercises of line item vetos? I'd like to see some sources to support your statement.

Why do you believe signing statements cannot be challenged as unconstitutional exercises of line item vetos? I'd like to see some sources to support your statement.
I didn't say no mechanisms exist by which signing statements could be challenged. What I did say is that the very secrecy of these programs considerably reduces the chance for legal recourse by anyone caught up in a shadow program. For one, they may be in a cell in a secret off-the-books prison, and for another they may not be aware of a violation of their rights (such as being surveilled).

This isn't about how Bush executes law; it's how he ignores law.

The sky is blue and the earth is round. Shocking. Presidents have always executed the laws in accordance with their understanding of the constitution.

Wow... so if a presidents power is restrained only by his ability to comprehend the law.. The President Bush is omnipotent.

"I must have missed that day in both high school civics and in College Consitutional law"

Apparently you did. Go back and review Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).

It's another example of a President interpreting a law (in this case ignoring an unconstitutional provision). Shock and awe, the Supreme Court agreed the President had and has that ability.

"very secrecy of these programs"

How many signing statements are issued in secrecy? Why are you limiting the challenger to someone caught up in the "program"?

"This isn't about how Bush executes law; it's how he ignores law."

You're arguing semantics. Much as in Myers above, the President executes the laws constitutionally. If it means a portion of a law is ignored (as the removal provision of the law was ignored in Myers), the Supreme Court has ruled the President is correct (indeed the President is not only correct, it is his duty).

"so if a presidents power is restrained only by his ability to comprehend the law"

Did you miss your class on the constitution and government also?

The President's power is restrained primarily (1) Congress's ability to withhold funding (the so called purse strings), (2) the Supreme Court (which has become the default arbiter of all things constitutional), and (3) limited term and popularly elected. There are more specific restraints on certain powers, but those are the most general ones.

You're arguing semantics.

Yeah, semantics.....like Bush saying they are not prisoners of war, but are instead enemy combatants, so the Geneva Conventions don't apply. (Never mind that war was declared, and countries invaded, and most of these people taken captive by our military during combat operations while executing that war.)

And, out of curiosity, since you seem to be a legal scholar, what is the average length of time it takes for a case to be heard before the Supreme Court? And, can that be affected by the Chief Justice's determination of which cases to review?

I am just wondering what time frame we are looking at for the person tortured or held captive because Bush chose not to honor the law but instead used his signing statement to establish his acceptable procedures; how long before he would get his day in court, and what good will that do him at that point?

"And, out of curiosity, since you seem to be a legal scholar, what is the average length of time it takes for a case to be heard before the Supreme Court?"

Why are you looking for average time and why wait until it's heard before the Supreme Court?

A preliminary injunction against the executive branch could issue within hours of a signing statement (assuming those can be challenged -- I am still waiting for some citations why they cannot be challenged). A litigant is not required to sit by and suffer irreperable harm while a lawsuit is pending.

"And, can that be affected by the Chief Justice's determination of which cases to review?"

From what I understand of Supreme Court case selection, the Chief Justice is not the sole determination for which cases are chosen nor does he have a "veto" power. This would not be a case of original jurisdiction so it would originate in a lower court (perhaps the DC Circuit Court although that is just speculation).

"I am just wondering what time frame we are looking at for the person tortured or held captive because Bush chose not to honor the law but instead used his signing statement to establish his acceptable procedures; how long before he would get his day in court, and what good will that do him at that point?"

An hour maybe less depending on how quickly a judge could be found. A lot less than it took Congress to debate the bill that's for sure.

The President's power is restrained primarily (1) Congress's ability to withhold funding (the so called purse strings), (2) the Supreme Court (which has become the default arbiter of all things constitutional), and (3) limited term and popularly elected. There are more specific restraints on certain powers, but those are the most general ones.

So according to you, Oliver Wendell Holmes, a President's power is restrained only by Congressional budgetary votes and if the Chief Justice decides he wants to hear the case or not. So if a second term president, Oh I dont know, has a 1 vote majority in house and senate and has recently appointed the Chief Justice, his power is pretty much unchecked? He can wipe his ass with the constitution and shit on the bill of rights as he weilds the kind of power are forefathers had nightmares about?

What country do you hold a law degree from? Im assuming it cant be the US, because you couldnt be that inept at your interpretation of the constitution of this country.

"So if a second term president, Oh I dont know, has a 1 vote majority in house and senate and has recently appointed the Chief Justice, his power is pretty much unchecked?"

In other words, if the President controls both houses of Congress and the judiciary his power is unchecked? Sure -- what constitutional branch are you looking for genius? Some mythical 4th branch? Show me an interpretation of the constitution that creates this 4th branch.

"inept at your interpretation of the constitution"

The statement you quoted of mine was in no way an interpretation of the constitution.

No fourth branch is needed, he only needs to stick within the limits of his office, which was envisioned by our founding fathers to be equal to the other three branches and at all times subserviant to the law.
The core belief of the Constitution and our founding fathers was the those who held power were to be subject to law. A weilder of power is never in a position to define the law. The courts are set up as the third branch to do this job, and this job alone.
No matter what the law says, the President is beholden to it. He does NOT define if it is law or not. He has no say in this regard, it is his sacred duty to "take care that laws are faithfully executed"
A cop on the street does not decide which laws are good and which are bad. It is not his duty to do that.. his job is make sure they are enforced.

As John Adams said "The Executive shall never exercise the legislative and judical powers, or either of them, to that end it may be a GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT MEN."

A government of Laws... Not men.. Not their defintion of laws, or Men picking and choosing what laws are suitable or right.

How do you square your vision with the clear Supreme Court guidance (and 200+ years of practice) that the President can (and I would argue should) interpret laws so as to conform to the Constitution?

You've essentially put any President in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation. If Congress passed a veto-proof law that Christianity was the sole religion of this country giving criminal fines for violation, you would applaud a President that enforces it?

Much as your mythical cop has an obligation to refuse to obey an illegal order, the President has a similar obligation.

Talk about arguing semantics. Sheesh! The issue is this, Bush tends to not only interpret the constitution in a way that is solely favorible to a single branch of government or he just simply "cherry pick" ignores it and the rights it gives the citizens of this country.

Have there been other presidents that have done basically the same? Of course, but history has always proven to villify them for it in the end.

I'm far from a constitutional scholar but I don't think it takes one to realize that there are some dangerous happenings within this administration when it comes to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. Lawyers can argue all they want, the congress can play games all they want, Bush can override any law he feels like and justice Scalia can ignore the implications in neglecting to recuse himself from cases he has a personal interest in but all of that crap and legal "dancing" cannot change the facts.

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.

The argument is in what does Bush believe to be unconstitutional. Apparently he believes that NOT torturing a POW or Enemy Combatant is unconstitutional, he believes that requiring a warrant to wiretap communications is unconstitutional...basically he believes that any part of the laws of this country that protect citizens from government intrusion is unconstitutional. Thats the scary thing.

Since World War II this country has taken on the bad habit of fighting unwinnable wasteful wars. Wars, that it is well known are, not winnable but designed to go on forever and line the pockets of our largest corporations with dollars from government contracts and give the government the power to ignore the most basic rights of its citizens. The most obvious examples are Vietnam and the war on drugs both designed to go on forever, I'm certain this is what will be in Iraq, thank god the youth of America put their foot down with Vietnam. Lets hope someone does with Iraq.

How do you square your vision with the clear Supreme Court guidance (and 200+ years of practice) that the President can (and I would argue should) interpret laws so as to conform to the Constitution?

You've essentially put any President in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation. If Congress passed a veto-proof law that Christianity was the sole religion of this country giving criminal fines for violation, you would applaud a President that enforces it?

Much as your mythical cop has an obligation to refuse to obey an illegal order, the President has a similar obligation.

I would applaud a President who did his job and enforced the laws enacted by Congress until such time as the courts determined them to be unconstitutional.

Under your argument a President could issue an order to arrest anyone performing an abortion, contrary to Roe vs Wade, if he believed the law to be against the constitution. Why has that not been done?

That is the role of the courts. It is not the role of the President.

Ah, look at the year ... 1994!
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
The President has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency. Where the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it, unless he is convinced that the Court would disagree with his assessment. If the President does not challenge such provisions (i.e., by refusing to execute them), there often will be no occasion for judicial consideration of their constitutionality; a policy of consistent Presidential enforcement of statutes limiting his power thus would deny the Supreme Court the opportunity to review the limitations and thereby would allow for unconstitutional restrictions on the President's authority.

Some legislative encroachments on executive authority, however, will not be justiciable or are for other reasons unlikely to be resolved in court. If resolution in the courts is unlikely and the President cannot look to a judicial determination, he must shoulder the responsibility of protecting the constitutional role of the presidency. This is usually true, for example, of provisions limiting the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Where it is not possible to construe such provisions constitutionally, the President has the authority to act on his understanding of the Constitution.
...

The Court in Myers can be seen to have implicitly vindicated the view that the President may refuse to comply with a statute that limits his constitutional powers if he believes it is unconstitutional.
You all need to go to Furt's school, they taught him well.. and right.

No, I disagree.

That opinion was developed for cases in which the congress was trying to infringe on the power of the presidency and affirmed the ability of the President to protect the definition of his office. It bases that right to non compliance on the premise that the administration will then take the steps necessary to bring the case to judical review.

What Bush has done does not fall with in this context because there has been no attempt by the administration to challenge the laws or bring them for review. There has simply been a dismissal of laws they do not wish to adhere to. They do this by covering the entire mess under the veil of "Classification". "Oh we cant take this to the court because it risks the revealing of secret information"

How convenient.

9/11 has a dress put on it, make up applied and put on the street corner to be whored out by the pimps in this administration who are using it to justify their PNAC ideology and create an imperial presidency to go along with their imperial aims.
They have sown the wind and are now they are reaping the tornado.

No, I disagree.

That opinion was developed for cases in which the congress was trying to infringe on the power of the presidency and affirmed the ability of the President to protect the definition of his office. It bases that right to non compliance on the premise that the administration will then take the steps necessary to bring the case to judical review.

What Bush has done does not fall with in this context because there has been no attempt by the administration to challenge the laws or bring them for review. There has simply been a dismissal of laws they do not wish to adhere to. They do this by covering the entire mess under the veil of "Classification". "Oh we cant take this to the court because it risks the revealing of secret information"

How convenient.

9/11 has a dress put on it, make up applied and put on the street corner to be whored out by the pimps in this administration who are using it to justify their PNAC ideology and create an imperial presidency to go along with their imperial aims.
They have sown the wind and are now they are reaping the tornado.

Wow, strong words, and you are on the money.

"Under your argument a President could issue an order to arrest anyone performing an abortion, contrary to Roe vs Wade, if he believed the law to be against the constitution. Why has that not been done?"

That is not the argument Bylimet. First, Roe v. Wade is not a "law". Second, it is clear from the Constitution and Supreme Court that the Executive branch cannot "make" laws. The question is whether a President can refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law (or more correctly execute the law in a way that is constitutional). I believe, and in my opinion the Supreme Court supports this, that a President can interpret a law in this manner.

Read the Myers opinion again L2 and the President's signing statement at issue because you are incorrect in part.

President's Bush signing statement objected to Congress's infringement of his CIC power. So you are correct that the two situations dealt with Congressional infringment of executive powers (Myers dealt with appointment powers, Bush's signing statement the aforementioned CIC powers).

Where you are wrong, however, is the idea that the court based the President's right on a premise that the administration would bring about judicial review. The Supreme Court (and the Constitution) imposes no such requirement. If you want to quote language in the Myers opinion setting out this premise, please correct me, but I did not see any.

In Myers, the administration did NOT bring about the judicial review (much like you chastise the Bush administration). President Wilson ignored a decades old law and dismissed the postmaster without consulting the Senate as required by the law. President Wilson did not challenge the law in court. The Postmaster challenged his dismissal and that is how the case came before judicial review.

Good catch by the way Akipt. My cursory research did not uncover that article. I'll read it more in depth and its citations later, but it's nice to see at least one other "Oliver Wendell Holmes" supports my views.

Just a quick quote from the memo akipt linked.

"Some legislative encroachments on executive authority, however, will not be justiciable or are for other reasons unlikely to be resolved in court. If resolution in the courts is unlikely and the President cannot look to a judicial determination, he must shoulder the responsibility of protecting the constitutional role of the presidency. This is usually true, for example, of provisions limiting the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Where it is not possible to construe such provisions constitutionally, the President has the authority to act on his understanding of the Constitution."

Interesting that the memo singles out encroachment on CIC authority which is precisely the authority referenced in the signing statement being discussed.

I dont care for Colbert much, his roast was awesome, he has no fear. That video was lame that he made. PErhaps it is because i am not a member of the press but i just thought it went on too long and the scream was over done.

Did you miss your class on the constitution and government also?

The President's power is restrained primarily (1) Congress's ability to withhold funding (the so called purse strings), (2) the Supreme Court (which has become the default arbiter of all things constitutional), and (3) limited term and popularly elected. There are more specific restraints on certain powers, but those are the most general ones.

How does Congress withhold funding from programs unknown to the vast majority of that body? How does the Supreme Court exercise judicial review of programs not brought before it because potential challengers either a) are not aware of a given program proscribed by law but instituted by the President, or b) caught inside a program's gears (e.g., imprisoned without recourse)? How can a populace make informed electoral decisions while ignorant of basic details of questionable programs instituted by a President?

How do you square your vision with the clear Supreme Court guidance (and 200+ years of practice) that the President can (and I would argue should) interpret laws so as to conform to the Constitution?
My vision is that warrantless wiretaps of US citizens (to cite one prominent example) do not square with the Constitution. My vision also suggests that programs kept from Congressional oversight and judicial review do not square with the Constitution. Bush isn't interpreting laws to conform to the Constitution -- he's disregarding laws and Constitution both.

"The Court in Myers can be seen to have implicitly..."
Wow, how much plainer could the case be? The opinion akipt cites (an op-ed, if you will) takes about as broad a view as possible of the rather narrow Myers ruling, that the President can remove a first, second and third class postmaster without the advice or consent of the Senate. For the reasons given, we must therefore hold that the provision of the law of 1876 by which the unrestricted power of removal of first-class postmasters is denied to the President is in violation of the Constitution and invalid.
Myers was also limited by the case of Humphrey's Executor (which stated, briefly, the the President could not use his removal power on an official of the FTC). This latter case can be seen to have implicitly (legalese is fun) limited broad applications of Myers by noting the qualitative dissimilarity between cases within the question of Presidential authority.

To put it another way, if an FTC official is different than a postmaster, how much more different, then, is torture? Warrantless wiretapping? Any other law Bush wishes to ignore?

"Bush isn't interpreting laws to conform to the Constitution"

But that's precisely what he is doing. No one is arguing that Bush has the right to interpret laws against the Constitution. He has no more right than Congress does to pass unconstitutional laws or for the Supreme Court to rule in a manner contrary to the Constitution. That would be an absurd argument.

The argument is whether Bush can interpret laws to conform to the Constitution. I think the legal background supports that conclusion. Others, L2 and Bylimet in particular, have argued that a President should enforce whatever law is passed regardless of how unconstitutional it may be.

Why would you say implicitly regarding Humphrey's Executor? If the ruling was as you stated, it would be an explicit limitation of Myers. You're also confusing the difference in officials between the two cases and the broader application to Presidential powers. An FTC official may be different than a postmaster for the purposes of the President's appointment power, but it is irrelevant when comparing that appointment power to CIC power, pardon power, or other Presidential power.

If you don't think Myers is enough support, read the other cases cited (e.g. Freytag). Better yet, how about finding some contrary judicial support to the theory. I haven't seen you, L2, or Bylimet post any contrary judicial opinion. Post it and let us review it.

Others, L2 and Bylimet in particular, have argued that a President should enforce whatever law is passed regardless of how unconstitutional it may be.

Ok, you are going to have to link or quote where I have argued this. I have said the President's duty is to enforce the laws passed by Congress until such time as the Court may determine they are unconstitutional. It is, simply speaking, quite asinine to argue that Congress would pass unconstitutional laws, for the purpose of this debate.

It seems the position is being put that Congress is intentionally legislating contrary to the Constitution and the President is merely looking out for the country. BULLSHIT!

I respect Furt's knowledge in the legal domain, but I am seeing wiretapping American citizens (without a warrant or any oversight) and allowing torture (in direct violation of the Geneva conventions we are a signator to) being compared to removing a Postmaster, and that makes me want to gag. And to say these people have the recourse to challenge it is not only naive, but insulting; once an act has been done, it cannot be undone.

Hopefully Bush will not cancel the 2008 elections (for national security reasons of course), and McCain can bring the country back to a respectful position, both in terms of respect for it's citizens, and worthy of the respect of the rest of our neighbors on the planet.


BTW, I don't use links because I am pretty computer illiterate, and have never learned how to do so. I am an old fart, ya know.

Why would you say implicitly regarding Humphrey's Executor?

I used the same language found in the link posted by akipt and quoted in my post. I found the language amusing (such an abundance of qualifications in so few words), so chose to quote that rather than be more exact.

You're also confusing the difference in officials between the two cases and the broader application to Presidential powers. An FTC official may be different than a postmaster for the purposes of the President's appointment power, but it is irrelevant when comparing that appointment power to CIC power, pardon power, or other Presidential power.

My point was to show the use (or, perhaps, abuse) of a narrow ruling by engorging its significance in order to aggrandize presidential authority. There's no confusion, simply the sort of wariness of central control the country's Founding Fathers exhibited in crafting our system of government. Also, I wish to point out that "pardon power" and "CIC power" are less comparable than you paint them. Pardon power is quite discrete compared to the vaguer notion of what constitutes CIC power. It is the broadening of the latter that concerns me most.

The argument is whether Bush can interpret laws to conform to the Constitution.

Actually, my argument is that the nature of Bush's bypassing of certain laws is unconstitutional due to the inability of our checks & balances system to operate (individual instances of his "interpretation" must travel the pathway of the courts if possible). Concomitant with that is the question regarding what limitations, if any, apply to his powers as CIC. To that end, let me paint a scenario:

You and I speak by phone on some matter or other while you are overseas. President Whoever has decided to tap your line, but -- lacking evidence that might sway the FISA court -- does so without a warrant. You say something that the listener finds questionable (perhaps in jest or quoting another speaker, or perhaps you're peacefully seditious), it's referred to the AG, and you are arrested (but not charged) and placed in a remote prison in solitary confinement. Your requests to contact family or an attorney are denied, as you've been declared an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Positing that you know something of value, President Whoever or his designee may even authorize torture.

The above scenario encapsulates, I think, the level of authority claimed by the current President. One could render the scenario entirely domestic, giving you the same treatment given to Jose Padilla, whose incarceration was such a national emergency that the 4th Circuit upheld his detainment without charge (but who was then transferred to civilian custody by emergency request as the case neared SCOTUS review). In either situation, you might be a of evil intent, a harmless but vocal dissenter, or an innocent victim. Regardless of those circumstances, your life can be brought to a halt for years on the President's say so. Is the above plausible under the administration's/your interpretation of the Constitution? Note the intense secrecy regarding the operations of overseas 'prisons' in considering a response.

Personally, I find it disturbing that an administration's actions have brought us to the point that we have these discussions. I find it interesting to dig through case law and wish I had more time/expertise to do so. I share Bylimet's loathing of the Presidential power grab we've witnessed, the twisting of words and intentions by his AG and the distancing of the nation from the anti-monarchical tradition of our founders. I wish I shared his faith in McCain.

As a related aside, the CATO Institute has published their appraisal (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf) of Bush's record, and they aren't too happy.

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power.

In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes:

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

*a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and,

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave. President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

In every single respect, this administration has been devoted to one principle and one principle only -- an expansion of its own power. That is its driving philosophy and its ultimate goal, and it is hardly surprising that a true conservative organization like the Cato Institute ("true conservative" in the sense that they are devoted to limited federal government power, rather than the worship of authoritarian power as Bush followers are) would find this administration anathema to every important political value and principal which this country has.

"Ok, you are going to have to link or quote where I have argued this."

Honestly Bylimet, I only have to go to your next sentence --

"I have said the President's duty is to enforce the laws passed by Congress until such time as the Court may determine they are unconstitutional."

There is no doubt Congress passes unconstitutional laws. Your position (as stated above) is that the President must enforce those unconstitutional laws "until such time as the Court may determine" their constitutionality. I respectfully disagree, and I believe I have cited opinions, articles, and past Presidential actions to support my viewpoint.

"It is, simply speaking, quite asinine to argue that Congress would pass unconstitutional laws, for the purpose of this debate."

Why though? If Congress passes a law that is constitutional, there is no question that the President must enforce it even if he disagrees with it. It is only when Congress passes an unconstitutional law that the questions arises whether a President must enforce it.

"Ok, you are going to have to link or quote where I have argued this."

Honestly Bylimet, I only have to go to your next sentence --

"I have said the President's duty is to enforce the laws passed by Congress until such time as the Court may determine they are unconstitutional."

There is no doubt Congress passes unconstitutional laws. Your position (as stated above) is that the President must enforce those unconstitutional laws "until such time as the Court may determine" their constitutionality. I respectfully disagree, and I believe I have cited opinions, articles, and past Presidential actions to support my viewpoint.


So, let's just forget about the system of government we have, and return to a monarchy as Bush and Cheney so obviously desire. It is no longer up to the courts to determine constitutionality, but up to the King. It is not up to the Congress to legislate, but up to the King to determine what laws may or may not be followed. All hail King George.

This traitor to conservative politics, to the Republican ideology, to the spirit of American freedom, should be treated no better than any other citizen of this country that is now subject to a complete loss of civil rights at the whim of a select few, sanctioned by the King.

Sorry, my absolute disgust for Bush is showing. McCarthy at least was out front with his insanity......Bush is much more insidious. And that sleazy profiteer Cheney will do whatever is necessary to keep someone like Bush in power and having his way, because he continues to have his bankroll expanded.


Those two have done more harm to this country in six years than any other episode in our history. To allow them to continue to use the "war on terror" as an excuse to dismantle the foundations of our nation is deplorable.