Media Consortium / By Brian Beutler
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 202

Revealed: Bush's Presidential Signing Statements Have Been Used to Nullify Laws

A Government Accountability Office report confirms that Bush's use of presidential signing statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases.
June 18, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
Well, it's official: President Bush doesn't much respect the laws Congress passes. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- commissioned by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and released today -- confirms that Bush's use of presidential signing statements are, in fact, utterly without precedent.

Though they've been used by American presidents for about 200 years, signing statements -- edicts issued by the president to declare his intent to construe a provision within a law differently than Congress does -- are constitutionally questionable. But George W. Bush's use of them far exceeds his predecessors', both in number and in severity, and he has consistently used them to flout the will of the legislative branch.

Though the GAO report makes no claims about the legitimacy of Bush's statements or of the use of statements in general, it indicates that, in practice, the statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases. The issues are important: They include accounting for Iraq war funding and security measures for the border patrol.

And that's just from the GAO's inquiry into the 11 signing statements Bush issued against appropriations acts in 2006, which constituted objections to 160 different provisions. Bush has released more than 100 signing statements in his presidency, taking exception to hundreds of provisions of the law.

The report was conducted fairly simply. GAO officials surveyed 19 of last year's 160 objections to determine how the statements had impacted the implementation of laws. According to the report: "We contacted the relevant agencies and asked them how they were executing the provisions. After evaluating the responses we received, we determined that agencies failed to execute six provisions as enacted."

Alongside the failures of law, the reports also list the rationales that the president used to strike down the provisions. For instance, GAO found that, by citing the Unitary Executive Theory, Bush allowed the Department of Defense to exclude "costs for any other contingency operations, such as those in Iraq" as Congress had mandated.

Indeed, it's the Unitary Executive Theory -- another constitutionally dubious concept -- that has made Bush's use of signing statements especially damaging. Last year, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., inserted a provision into the Department of Defense emergency supplemental bill that would have criminalized the use of torture by U.S. military interrogators. In order to protect the measure's effectiveness, McCain included a provision that aimed to stop all interference by the president, save for a veto of the entire package. "The provisions of this section," it read, "shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this act, which specifically repeals, modifies or supersedes the provisions of this section."

But upon signing the law, President Bush declared his intent to interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

Supplying much of the jurisprudential weight to the president's practice has been Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has written widely in support of the statements. In particular -- as the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage has reported -- in his dissent against the court's decision in the case of Hamdan vs. Donald Rumsfeld to block Guantanamo Bay military tribunals, Scalia wrote that "in its discussion of legislative history the court wholly ignores the president's signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the [Detainee Treatment Act] ousted jurisdiction over pending cases."

Scalia appears to have laid out his philosophy on signing statements in a 1986 memo, wherein he wrote, "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress."

In 2006, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced legislation that would have forbidden federal courts from legitimating presidential signing statements and allowed Congress to bring up the question of their constitutionality before the Supreme Court. But the bill never made it to the Senate floor and expired at the end of the 109th Congress.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: bush

comments COMMENTS ( 202 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Another indicator of White House corruption.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 18, 2007 3:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W.'s excessive use of signing statements to circumvent the Constitution is just another example of his admininistration’s dishonest nature -- as shown by following White House transgressions, distortions and outright lies:

So-called Iraqi WMDs.
"Immediate" threats.
Yellow-cake uranium.
Aluminum tubes.
Mobile biological weapons labs.
Ties to Al Qaeda.
A 9/11 connection.
The Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.
Scooter Libby’s conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice
Secret overseas prisons.
Torture.
Warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens.
Phony Al Qaeda plots.
False claims that America is safer now from terrorism than before 9/11.
Concealing the real cost of Gulf War 2.
Understating Iraqi civilian casualties.
Embellishing U.S. successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Misrepresenting the only wartime tax cut in American history.
Economically betraying senior citizens, the middle class and working poor.
Downplaying global warming.
Bush going on vacation during Hurricane Katrina while fellow Americans drowned in New Orleans.
Claiming wounded GIs got the best treatment possible at Walter Reed.
Preventing the coffins of returning GIs from being seen by the public.
Hiding injured Iraq veterans from the press after landing stateside.
Declassifying intelligence information for political purposes.
Firing U.S. attorneys for the same reason.

Also add to the above list the falsified presidential biography I found on a State Department website in February 2004 and reported to the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

You can learn about the “Bogus Bush Bio Caper” on my nonprofit website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (Shrub’s fabricated Guard history).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your words speak for themselves, Hugh Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» No comment on your Petraeus comment? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: HughScott---thoughtcriminal Posted by: wmGreybeard

Comments are closed-

Unitary Executive Theory
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 18, 2007 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unitary Executive Theory

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Signing statements are a clear path to tyranny
[Report this comment]
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 18, 2007 4:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given time, the Orwellian thrust (clear skies = more pollution, healthy forests = more roads and clearcutting) of this administration will be that tyranny equals freedom and justice requires arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for the masses and impunity for the favored few.

Electing any Democrat to the presidency in 08 (if he/she is allowed to take office) is crucial. The republic cannot survive eight more years of this. Elections still have some meaning thanks to the defeat of some of the corrupt Republicans last November. That can change faster than you can say Adolph Hitler and will - count on it - if the rethugs have more time to stack the deck in their favor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HA!!! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: HA!!! Posted by: Lauren
» Elect any Democrat? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: lect any Democrat? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Excuse Me.... Posted by: CatDad

Comments are closed-

Just what the founders warned us of...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 18, 2007 4:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what the Bush criminals are. We have, for far too long, allowed our politicians to break the rules - ostensibly to do good things. But, it's not the abuse of power we should be most concerned with, instead, we should be most wary of the power to abuse.

Bush is the logical progression of years and years of constitutional rule bending and breaking. When a society allows its government to bend the rules over and over - eventually they'll get politicians that feel the rules don't apply at all.

But, the constitution isn't some mere suggestion. It's the law. It's high time we started demanding that these people follow the law. period.

Some follow up reading:

"We Must Return to Our Constitution" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Articles of Impeachment gain more support in the House.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 18, 2007 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Cloud Over Dick Cheney

"When Rep. Kucinich introduced his Articles of Impeachment in the House, he made this cogent charge: “Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the U.S. by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.” (2) In his three Articles of Impeachment, Rep. Kucinich detailed the dates, the times and the places, where Cheney chose to “deceive the citizens” about the alleged threats of Iraqi WMD...."

"Rep. Kucinich also underscored in H Res 333, the lethal consequences of Cheney’s warmongering: namely, U.S. service members killed in Iraq (now at 3,521); the death toll of Iraqis (estimated by the “Lancet Study” at 655,000, as of July, 2006); 4.2 million Iraqis forced from their homes; and the cost of the war to U.S. taxpayers, (now $435.4 billion). There are currently six cosponsors of H Res 333, in the House of Representatives. In addition to Reps. Kucinich and Waters, they are: Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Yyette Clark (D-NY); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); William Lacy Clay (D-M0) and Al Wynn (D-MD)."

"The charges in the Articles of Impeachment, raised by Rep. Kucinich, if proven, are clearly impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind, that under Article 1, Section 2 (5), of our National Charter, the role of the House in any impeachment inquiry is to “only” act as a Grand Jury. If it finds that there is probable cause, that is reasonable grounds, to believe the truth of the charges against Cheney, in H. Res 333, then it would have a duty under the law to impeach him. The U.S. Senate, then, would sit in judgment on the V.P. and decide his guilt or innocence. See, Art. 1, Sec. 3 (6)."

Now would be a good time to contact your House representative (available at http://www.house.gov/) and demand that they sign on.

It would also be good to let them know that you want to see hearings into Cheney's Energy Task Force, and that you want to see him testify under oath as to why maps of Iraqi oilfields were included in that secret, unreleased report (which should itself be subpoenaed).

All the evidence points to the facts:

*that Cheney and Bush had wanted to go to war in Iraq well before 9/11,

*that they knew that Saddam had no nuclear or biological weapons,

*that they deliberately manipulated intelligence using British help,

*that they cynically exploited the events of 9/11 by attempting to link that atrocity to Saddam,

*and that they deliberately lied to the American public in order to get the country to back a war in the Middle East - a war whose real objective was control of Iraqi oilfields for the benefit of their cronies in the fossil fuel and finance industries.

That, of course, is in addition to the bribery and corruption in the no-bid government contracts delivered to Bechtel, Halliburton, etc, the illegal spying on the American public, and the outing of covert CIA operatives for political purposes. If anyone ever deserved to be impeached and imprisoned, these clowns do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Strap on the tinfoil Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Strap on the tinfoil Posted by: Lauren
» Way to keep the MAN on his toes, Lauren! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» uhhhh..... Posted by: Illiteratilumen

Comments are closed-

the sole organ??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: particle61 on Jun 18, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.redstateupdate.net has doggedly reported on the 'signing statements' made by the 'sole organ' for two years...see stories
Presidential Signing Statements Inaugurate Legislator-in-Chief, issue 72
Signing Statements Signal Sentiments for Sidestepping Statutes-issue 36,
Bush Administration Opposed to Letters of the Law-issue 85,
Objections to Signing Statements Sustained-issue 65,

redstateupdate.net follows the subversion of the constitution beat- whether its the illegal wiretapping of millions of American phones or sending kidnapped citizens to underground penal colonies-with humor and prescience, and a new gwbush comic every week

www.redstateupdate.net
funny, frightening, free
and 'it's all true'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A special response to ThoughtCriminal.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 18, 2007 5:56 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever he or she is, ThoughtCriminal accused me in a comment above of being a “Republican makeover artist and war apologist.”

Anyone who has visited my King-George.biz website and read its content knows that ThoughtCriminal’s characterization of me is a malicious smear unworthy of comment. At the same time, ThoughtCriminal must be exposed as the divisive Stealth Bushie he or she is.

One thing I’ve always tried to do on AlterNet is present FACTS, not empty rhetoric. Being a Vietnam veteran with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776, I objected to a toilet-bowl characterization made by another reckless blogger, Howie Klein, who called General Petraeus a “disgrace to his uniform.”

Klein based his slur on a remark made by Petraeus that Iraq was showing “signs of normalcy.” On a very small scale, that's true. Yes, chaos reigns in the country but not TOTAL chaos. As I pointed out in my rebuttal, a popular recreation park in Baghdad named “Fun City” has never been struck by terrorists -- homegrown or Al Qaeda.

Does that mean the troop surge is succeeding? Not for a minute and Petraeus never said so.

Moreover, he reportedly predicted yesterday that it would take 10 years to get Baghdad under control. You can bet President Bush wasn’t pleased by that blunt assessment.

So until proof is provided that I'm wrong about Petraeus, I will stick to my original opinion of him. I have no doubt that the general will be truthful about the troop surge when he testifies before Congress in September. One indication is Tony Snow Job's backpedaling on how important the general's report will be.

Meanwhile, I suspect, ThoughtCriminal will continue spreading his criminal thoughts on AlterNet. Such is the price we pay for free speech.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You, sir, are a pompous moron. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: A special response ... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A special response ... Posted by: sethmo
» RE: A special response ... Posted by: Lauren

Comments are closed-

The Executive Executes, The Legislature Legislates
[Report this comment]
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jun 18, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The branches of government were kept separate in their respective roles so that neither could become despotic. The founders of this country reasoned that if we had a democracy as soon as one faction gained significantly more control than all the others, a dictatorship denying rights to all others would follow. So they looked upon the House of Representatives as the democratic part of government and realized that this body had to be checked. They also reasoned that if we had an imperial ruler, he or she would quickly seize all power to themselves and we would immediately be ruled tyrannically, so they reasoned that the president's power also needed to be restricted. If government was ruled by a few, or an elite, they would similar to the president seize all power to themselves and we would then be ruled by oligarchy, so they reasoned that the senate too requiered restriction to it's authority. In order to keep all three bodies in check they envisioned the judiciary as the independent body that would interpret the laws made by the House of Representative and the Senate so that there would be no question as to what action the president was to take. Beyond this, the founders saw that power had to be distributed among the states so that power wouldn't be absolutely centrally concentrated lest despotism set in. So the states were given sovereign jurisdiction over matters that involved only the territory of the state, yet they were bound together in matters that affected them all collectively so that one state wouldn't conquer all the other states. In every aspect of the government of the United States there were checks and balances built in. The president was never intended to interpret law, he was only every intended to carry out the will of congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Presidential signing statements came about outside the Constitutional framework of the United States and are hence illegal because they compromise the balance of power built into the system. Just because signing statements weren't brought into question prior to George W. Bush's tenure in office, doesn't make them any more legal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent analysis. N/T Posted by: Illiteratilumen

Comments are closed-

THIS MUST STOP!!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 18, 2007 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is it going to take to convince our sleeping countryfolk to wake up? We are in a nightmare that is soon to become a night terror. Bu$h and everybody associated with this parasite think they own this country and as such are free to do as they wish. We must make certain they realize that we , not they run this country and we have the law behind us to do so. WE can put these criminals behind bars (or better) if we will just do it. However, WE HAD BETTER DO IT AND DO IT FAST!!! Time is running out.

I recommend an article for all to read. This is a review of the book by Michael Chossudovsky entitled "America's War on Terrorism." This is a long review, but is loaded with valuable, awakening information. This article and the book represented by it describe step by step what is happening here in the "land of the free." Read it!!! I insist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ehhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: gracefounddog
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

My guess is if only 30% of the 'signing statements' can be associated with ignored laws, it's an...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 18, 2007 9:54 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...improvement over the feds standard operating procedure. My uninformed speculation is that most of the laws go unenforced most of the time.

I do not intend to defend Bush. But I do believe that the pileup of laws written in order to make legislators look and feel good, and which amount to nothing more than gestures thrown at problems, needs to be simplified rather than elaborated. Therefore the signing statements amount to just another tempest in a teapot.

The administration's job is to enforce the laws. A poor administration does a poor job of it. How is it more harmful to be told where the administration does not plan to enforce laws than to be kept guessing? The issue is a pile of pasteboard and persiflage, to borrow a historic description.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Impeachment and prosecution now!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jun 19, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough of this bullshit. When are the feckless Democrats going to do something about this pariah and his accomplices? You got it.....never!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeachment and prosecution now! Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

Hello EagleMB?!?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: themotie on Jun 19, 2007 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You were talking in another thread about Bush's respect for the law. Why don't we continue that discussion here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hello EagleMB?!? Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

Justice Scalia should go back to law school.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jun 19, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Justice Scalia's logic:
"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress." Understanding, to Scalia seems to include xing out provisions Bush has explicitly agreed to by signing the bill.

Does this mean that, if I buy a house, and I am given the contract the other party has already signed, I can simply add a clause revising the contract any way I like before signing it, then hold the other party liable for my changes?

This guy should be impeached along with Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To further elaborate Posted by: brunowe
» RE: To further elaborate Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: To further elaborate Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

More Crazy Talk
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dlf on Jun 19, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I guess the remarks following this story will be construed by some as more crazy talk by a fringe group. For anyone who thinks that the NAU is implausible, this story should be a wake up call. Did you read the part where he xed out the border security provision? There is no such thing as the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. This story makes it abundantly clear we have a unitary government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It’s Official: Majority of American People Are Suffering From Abject Complacency and Apathy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: freethink7 on Jun 19, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans just continue to behave as though, ‘oh nothing, oh nothing’ in response to Bu$h tyrannical behavior. I’ve never seen so many people so complacent and apathetic. That’s how this installed unelected puppet president continues to get away with all the constitutional crimes, jurisprudence abuses, and unprecedented assaults on civil freedoms and civil liberties……people are just too indifferent to the myriad of crimes committed by this tyrant. We the people have the power to organize + fire Bu$h Cheney Inc from their jobs in D.C. and imprison them for all the treason + sedition they’ve committed against our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Network media is the problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Trazom on Jun 19, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The demographics of the United States is such that a significant, and increasing, portion of the population is reaching age 55 and above, as the first wave of baby boomers starts to retire. The majority of these people do not know how to operate computers much less own a computer, hence their access to alternative news is limited at best. We also have an entire new generation of kids and young adults who, for the most part, are indifferent or apathetic toward their own government. Throw in the Superficial Fake News and Celebrity Glamour fascination that is so entrenched in this culture today and you have a recipe for a country in which most people are severely uninformed and/or misinformed.

The people here at Alternet represent only the slightest minority of the American public, probably on the order of 0.1 to 0.5%., once you account for the groups discussed above. Therefore things stated here do not reach that 99.5% of the population, and never will on the present course.

The media is perfectly complicit in their omission (denial?) of coverage of events regarding our body politic in Washington. Since it is a busines first, and purveryor of honest journalism second (and ethical reporter a distant third), we know what stories will continue to win night after night on the boob tube. We need to figure out how to reverse this course. We cannot effect change until a critical portion of the population becomes enlightened about this administration's actions, and future intentions. We can have all the damning evidence we think we need, and the passion that goes along with it, but coming from this small minority it simply won't amount to too much.

As I replied in a previous post I asked how many times have listeners heard the words "signing statements" mentioned on the nightly news, with regard to despotic intentions and/or constitutional infringement. I counted zero. I remember it mentioned once, quickly after Congress passed its Iraq spending bill complete with interim goals, to which the First Fool nullified with yet another signing statement.

We have a perfect storm brewing in Orwellian terms, as the Media reports all is well, the economy is healthy, and terrorism is being kept at bay. Meanwhile, the Constitution is being denigrated, median income is falling and the middle class is disappearing, more people are losing health insurance, and we are slowly losing our civil liberties and freedoms in the name of security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Network media is the problem Posted by: VannaLaRoche

Comments are closed-

Positive Grant...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 19, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Constitution was written under what's called "positive grant"

That means, the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers which are specifically listed in the constitution.

I've read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights plenty of times. I've found absolutely nothing in there which allows the President to do this. It doesn't even mention "signing statements" at all!

Thus, his actions are clearly in violation of the constitution - the law.

Some follow up reading:

"We Must Return to Our Constitution" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Lauren

Comments are closed-

The smirking ape-king
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Jun 19, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How fed up are Americans now? Apparently not enough to DO something about the situation. Oh, sure, we complain and loudly grumble to each other, and not nearly enough to those we hired to look after our best interests. In the meantime, our democracy is becoming unravelled-a veto here, a signing statement there while an emasculated Congress cowers in the shadows, the whole thing presided over by a hideous parody of a man who lacks the brainpower to conceive of, let alone, direct our descent into a ruthless dictatorship. How do you like our situation now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The smirking ape-king Posted by: Trazom
» RE: The smirking ape-king Posted by: Lauren

Comments are closed-

Thankfully we have the Democrats in power
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Soco on Jun 19, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my commonly sarcastic way I state the obvious yet again...

Just be happy Lieberman isn't the Vice President, cause once upon a time he was Gore's running mate. Thanks Conny! So, how's Pelosi working out for us? Ehh, nicht so gut?

Because we all know carbon units are going to save the planet.

So tell me, any real difference between Democrats and Republicans? Looks like Democratic voters are suckers too. I guess it'll take a white female president and a black male VP to really make us feel good about the continued self-destruction of our most beloved country. I'd bet Barack O' Clinton will find those previous signing statements, let's say "Somewhat useful."

Concerning Iran
"All options are on the table."
-- Bush, Clinton, Obama

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

so what's the plan-how do we stop these traitors?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hayduke1 on Jun 19, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
seriously,
we all talk about how bad these scum are for our nation and our world, but what can we actually do to stop them?
we elected the dems to the majority, they do nothing, or worse, remain complicit in all of the crimes.

obviously, we must do something, but what?

where and when does the revolution begin?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bush is more "Soviet" than American, and soon to be Dictator..!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jun 19, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this article details the use of signing statements and I agree completely that they are intended to suspend the rule of law and in reality place G.W. Bush above the law...

The recent revelations as to the violations of the Hatch Act of 1939 and the Presidential Records Law of 1971 I think, it shows a total disregard for the Rule of Law by Bush and those sycophant shyster attorney's who follow and surround him..!

Bush and Rove and Gonzales are more Soviet than American, they are loyal to party and power of party over our Nation..!

Their practices are truly Soviet and they are moving towards Dictatorship more everyday...

The Unitary Executive is an assault on our very system of government, intended to wipe away the three equal branches especially that branch the Legislative which is the branch of the people..!

Bush believes as do his sycophant usurper lawless ghoul traitor supporters, in government for the Bushes, by the Bushes and of the Bushes..

Sam Alito is a pure total shameless traitor to all that America has ever stood for and Chertoff will be the American Albert Speer once HSPD-20 is enacted, as well as NSPD-51 these are the ultimate signing statements, although called Presidential Directives, were this attempted in Rome during the Republic, well you consider what they would have done..!

So we see the Signing Statements, The Presidential Directives intended to create Dictatorship, the huge multiple violations of the Presidential Records Law, and the violations of the Hatch Act , violating the FISA law, systemic Torture institutionalized, The NSA spying on Americans when will it end..!

Why has Nancy Pelosi betrayed America, and it's people by suspending the Constitution and our laws and taken Impeachment off the table, is she truly a co-conspirator..in this plot against America and it's very system..?

Why hasn't one Congressmen or Senator said one word about NSPD-51 or HSPD-20 are they afraid knowing it's enforcement and the crack down by Blackwater the Presidents private and secret army, and KBR is coming and we shall become a nation of oppression and detention camps..that they KBR are building..?

Why hasn't Hillary Clinton mentioned these dangerous blatant treasonous papers..?

Or Edwards or Obama are they all a part of this plot..?

Our Attorney General Gonzales and Karl Rove are obvious blatant criminals so our Justice department is run by a criminal and the White House operates as a Unitary Soviet style Dictatorship..!

These are the most dangerous treasonous people ever in charge of our government ever, and where is our media where are our Congress and Senate..on this NSPD-51 why is it being ignored by them, has the deal already been struck will the bin-Laden's and Bushes arrange another attack some where any where in the world, so Bush can declare himself Dictator under NSPD-51..?

Remember you lose your Republic and freedom in increments and ours is slipping away, and will never return once it's gone..!

Arrest Warrants should be issued by the Judiciary committee for Gonzlaes and Karl Rove immediately..to begin with..!

This is treason and nothing less than treason against our very system..!

These are the very people Jefferson and Franklin warned us about..they're here, they're here now and more of a threat to our Republic than al-Qaeda could ever be..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

An American
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Patriot of the USA on Jun 19, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that we have a perfect holiday coming up where we ought to finally do something regarding this unscrupulous, arrogant bunch of less than bright people who have somehow been allowed into our White House. I would like to propose that we declare our independence from this so-called administration on the Fourth of July. At that time we could actually take back our Constitution from these people. After all George has been heard to say the Constitution is only a piece of paper. We respect it and revere it so let's do something about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An American Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

The easiest way to get Scalia off the bench.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 19, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is to encourage him to have frequent hunting trips with Dick Cheney!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Unitary Executive Theory = the Fuhrer Principle
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BeeGee on Jun 19, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler also proclaimed himself the ultimate judge of what was lawful. This was called the Fuhrer Principle in the Third Reich and was not accepted as defensible by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

As a previous poster mentioned, some recent executive orders are even more dictatorial than the signing statements mentioned in this article. The following is the official White House link to the latest. In these, Bush gives himself the right to declare martial law and suspend the government in case an even occurs that he, The Decider, decides is serious enough to do so -- I kid you not...

Click Here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Signing statements
[Report this comment]
Posted by: walt1944 on Jun 19, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Signing statements Posted by: zyclop

Comments are closed-

Enough....!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chabuka on Jun 19, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget subpoenas...! GUTLESS COWARDLY CONGRESS.... Issue some damn arrest warrants

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nough....! Posted by: thehousedog

Comments are closed-

It Can't Be That Bad!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 19, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can a person with a vocabulary like this pose a serious threat to anything?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Can't Be That Bad! Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

Scalia
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 19, 2007 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting that according to Scalia we must give equal weight to the President's interpetation of a law compared with that of the Congress . The problem with that , is while the President can Veto a law passed by the Congress , the Congress can NOT do anything similair to Presidential Signing Satetments even if he says Black is white .
The founders were always concerned with the powers of the Executive not so much so with the powers of the Congress .
Wonder how Scalia would react to the idea that the President's interpetation of a law is of the same weight as
a ruling by the Supreme Court .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

More and more the Constitution withers away
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jun 19, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Signing statements', yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (unless Stark County District Library caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
-----------------

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

End this madness?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Piscivore on Jun 19, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Ron Paul couldn't do that. We're going to have another civil war in six to eight years. Then it'll stop.

In the meantime, worse is better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

DICTATOR = DECIDER = UNITARY EXECUTIVE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Jun 19, 2007 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, we've crossed over an invisible line into a place that Rome entered right prior to the Imperial period. BV$H like Caesar has crossed the Rubicon and Congress like the Roman Senate long ago is either going to allow him to push them aside or stand in his way. He's certainly not acting like your typical "Lameduck" thats for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

stop financially supporting TV and their corporate advertisers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reverendg on Jun 19, 2007 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let them know about it. Turn off the news. Stop buying the products. E-mail, letters galore, letting them know they will be the first to hang when TSHTF. Until you change how money works, nothing will change. The fact that the TV news lies to us bald faced, means we should not even bother with them and work on your friends and neighbors to read the truth. Also, high on the list of grave problems confronting us is Peak Oil and rising gas prices...this will be a terrible emergency and we have been lied to over and over. Then Bush says "We are addicted to Oil, as though he never knew anything until the day before the State of the Nation speech. Hunker down everybody, we are in for the blow of our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Dems Shut Conyers Up - Now Where is Hillary and Pelosi???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 19, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know where I am coming from on this one. The Dems are being just a bunch of hot air. Conyers was the only one with the guts to start impeachment proceedings, and the Dems shut him down. So , what have we got now? Sure, Hillary and Pelosi are going to rant and rave, but, in the end they will do just as they have done so far on the Iraq war, absolutely, positively nothing. So who is going to be stopping King George, not the people we elected! They are too busy cowering every time the word "terrorist" is said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hypocrisy from the left to attack Bush for deprivation of rights, when reno/clinton's actions led to
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 19, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
two dozen American children burning to death at Waco.

The left's hysteria regarding any move Bush makes is purely based on ideology.

In fact, I am challenging all leftists on this blog to name two dozen Americans (equal to the number of children burned to death at Waco) who have had their constitutional rights denied without legal oversight.

In addition, the left's hypocrisy continues by their desire to gut the only part of the constitution that puts teeth into the protection of the Bill of Rights -- the 2nd amendment.

The left's opposition to the means to defend the 1st amendment confirms logically that they are simply ideologues not interested in preserving rights but promoting their socialist agenda.

that agenda = govt control over private property and transactions between private citizens &
forcing secular socialist social policies on a people who dont want anything to do with socialism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

FORCED PUBLIC EDUCATION IS AMERICA'S MOST SERIOUS AFFRONT TO LIBERTY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 19, 2007 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
note the hypocrisy from the left, who will justifiably criticize the feds for certain intrusions into the Constitutional rights of US citizens.

YET, for hypocritical ideological motives, they love the idea of a thought control police in the form of a public school monopoly in the US.

Will America be truly free when the reigns of education are 99% under govt control?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Too Late
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blookanoo on Jun 19, 2007 8:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dream on. They'll pull off another false flag like 911 and then declare martial law. People are so out to lunch--they are spraying the shit out of our skies with chemtrails, and 911 was an inside job too. These are facts. One only needs to open one's eyes, but we North Americans are too brain-dead to even see things that are right in front of our faces. So we are doomed to an ugly future. A bad sci-fi movie staring Charleton Heston coming soon to a planet near you suckers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

OTHER MEDIA TO CHECK OUT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chamela on Jun 19, 2007 9:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.sandersresearch.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.onlinejournal.com
http://www.larouchepub.com
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&idioma=en
http://www.carolynbaker.org

This news story is old news and is therefore useless information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Dem = Rep = self serving and owned
[Report this comment]
Posted by: illit on Jun 20, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only way to force 'our' leaders to listen to the electorate is to vote them out and the ends of their terms. After several elections they'll finally understand that WE own them - not the lobbies & big business.
It will be a tough dozen years or so, tho probably not much worse than what we've had.

And 'no' - a 3rd party will not help. We've ended up with our loser Gov. Perry in spite of the fact that 61% of us voted AGAINST him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I forgot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: illit on Jun 20, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Replacing them all might prove to be moot with the imposition of the paperless, auditless voting machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RON PAUL WILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND USE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 20, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HIS VETO POWER NOT GET AROUND THE CONSTITUTION LIKE BUSH DOES. REQUIRE THAT ALL CANDIDATES PROMISE UNDER LOSS OF OFFICE IF THEY BREAK THE PROMISE NOT TO USE PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING ORDERS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

congratulations to all for a sound dialogue on this dangerous move towards tyranny.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 20, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many times on AlterNet, the dialogue is just name calling. There were many sound postings and disgreements were argued based on historical facts and law. I am pleased to see the number of folks who understand our Constitution and who wish to defend it.

IMO, WE MUST GET BEHIND RON PAUL IF WE ARE TO SAVE WHAT IS LEFT TO OUR BELOVED CONSTITUTION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The enemy within.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 20, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am becoming more convinced with each passing day that some AlterNeters are either psychotic or stealth Bushies posing as progressives.

Prime examples on this thread are ThoughtCriminal, KeepsonTickn, Brunowe and Rinthy, all of whom attacked me in my Bushwhacking comment above titled, “Another indicator of White House corruption.”

The same thing happened today on the AlterNet thread, "Shop 'Til the Earth Drops," when I wrote harmlessly about gardening and called myself a “full-time” investigative journalist -- which I am, good or bad.

The belligerent blogger was “Edith,“ who tore into me with a vengeance, apparently to discredit my research and destroy my reputation.

To ThoughtCriminal, KeepsonTickn, Brunowe, Rinthy, Edith and other AlterNeters who have made baseless, mean-spirited comments about me: What the hell is wrong with you people?

Don’t you know divisiveness and infighting among progressives is what the White House loves? At the very least, instead of insults and empty rhetoric, quit hiding behind your AlterNet aliases and write under your REAL name using facts the way I do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The enemy within. Posted by: Trazom
» RE: The enemy within. Posted by: Nick

Comments are closed-

why emulate violent criminals Jak?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hayduke1 on Jun 21, 2007 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your name leads one to believe your mind is, let's say, not right.
your credibility as a thinking human is nil, just by virtue of carrying on the name of well known human waste.

go away jak ass, get a real life, and start thinking.

and yes, I'm attacking the messenger without addressing the message--because there's no real message besides---"I'm dirt, I'm going to make mud"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I have no problem with your article but
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 60's survivor on Jun 23, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it should be noted that as much as Bush has done it, Mr. Clinton was doing it just as much as well. Both are doing something which violates the spirit of the Republican government but the danger is to think the the problem is conervative versus liberal. The problem is finding men and/or women who are constitutional rather than personal politics oriented.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What the article means
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 23, 2007 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Translation of the article: George W. Bush is ruling by
decree. "Rules by decree" is the definition of a dictator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Another indicator of White House corruption.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 18, 2007 3:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W.'s excessive use of signing statements to circumvent the Constitution is just another example of his admininistration’s dishonest nature -- as shown by following White House transgressions, distortions and outright lies:

So-called Iraqi WMDs.
"Immediate" threats.
Yellow-cake uranium.
Aluminum tubes.
Mobile biological weapons labs.
Ties to Al Qaeda.
A 9/11 connection.
The Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.
Scooter Libby’s conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice
Secret overseas prisons.
Torture.
Warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens.
Phony Al Qaeda plots.
False claims that America is safer now from terrorism than before 9/11.
Concealing the real cost of Gulf War 2.
Understating Iraqi civilian casualties.
Embellishing U.S. successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Misrepresenting the only wartime tax cut in American history.
Economically betraying senior citizens, the middle class and working poor.
Downplaying global warming.
Bush going on vacation during Hurricane Katrina while fellow Americans drowned in New Orleans.
Claiming wounded GIs got the best treatment possible at Walter Reed.
Preventing the coffins of returning GIs from being seen by the public.
Hiding injured Iraq veterans from the press after landing stateside.
Declassifying intelligence information for political purposes.
Firing U.S. attorneys for the same reason.

Also add to the above list the falsified presidential biography I found on a State Department website in February 2004 and reported to the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

You can learn about the “Bogus Bush Bio Caper” on my nonprofit website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (Shrub’s fabricated Guard history).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your words speak for themselves, Hugh Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» No comment on your Petraeus comment? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: HughScott---thoughtcriminal Posted by: wmGreybeard

Comments are closed-

Unitary Executive Theory
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 18, 2007 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unitary Executive Theory

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Signing statements are a clear path to tyranny
[Report this comment]
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 18, 2007 4:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given time, the Orwellian thrust (clear skies = more pollution, healthy forests = more roads and clearcutting) of this administration will be that tyranny equals freedom and justice requires arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for the masses and impunity for the favored few.

Electing any Democrat to the presidency in 08 (if he/she is allowed to take office) is crucial. The republic cannot survive eight more years of this. Elections still have some meaning thanks to the defeat of some of the corrupt Republicans last November. That can change faster than you can say Adolph Hitler and will - count on it - if the rethugs have more time to stack the deck in their favor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HA!!! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: HA!!! Posted by: Lauren
» Elect any Democrat? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: lect any Democrat? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Excuse Me.... Posted by: CatDad

Comments are closed-

Just what the founders warned us of...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 18, 2007 4:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what the Bush criminals are. We have, for far too long, allowed our politicians to break the rules - ostensibly to do good things. But, it's not the abuse of power we should be most concerned with, instead, we should be most wary of the power to abuse.

Bush is the logical progression of years and years of constitutional rule bending and breaking. When a society allows its government to bend the rules over and over - eventually they'll get politicians that feel the rules don't apply at all.

But, the constitution isn't some mere suggestion. It's the law. It's high time we started demanding that these people follow the law. period.

Some follow up reading:

"We Must Return to Our Constitution" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Articles of Impeachment gain more support in the House.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 18, 2007 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Cloud Over Dick Cheney

"When Rep. Kucinich introduced his Articles of Impeachment in the House, he made this cogent charge: “Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the U.S. by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.” (2) In his three Articles of Impeachment, Rep. Kucinich detailed the dates, the times and the places, where Cheney chose to “deceive the citizens” about the alleged threats of Iraqi WMD...."

"Rep. Kucinich also underscored in H Res 333, the lethal consequences of Cheney’s warmongering: namely, U.S. service members killed in Iraq (now at 3,521); the death toll of Iraqis (estimated by the “Lancet Study” at 655,000, as of July, 2006); 4.2 million Iraqis forced from their homes; and the cost of the war to U.S. taxpayers, (now $435.4 billion). There are currently six cosponsors of H Res 333, in the House of Representatives. In addition to Reps. Kucinich and Waters, they are: Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Yyette Clark (D-NY); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); William Lacy Clay (D-M0) and Al Wynn (D-MD)."

"The charges in the Articles of Impeachment, raised by Rep. Kucinich, if proven, are clearly impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind, that under Article 1, Section 2 (5), of our National Charter, the role of the House in any impeachment inquiry is to “only” act as a Grand Jury. If it finds that there is probable cause, that is reasonable grounds, to believe the truth of the charges against Cheney, in H. Res 333, then it would have a duty under the law to impeach him. The U.S. Senate, then, would sit in judgment on the V.P. and decide his guilt or innocence. See, Art. 1, Sec. 3 (6)."

Now would be a good time to contact your House representative (available at http://www.house.gov/) and demand that they sign on.

It would also be good to let them know that you want to see hearings into Cheney's Energy Task Force, and that you want to see him testify under oath as to why maps of Iraqi oilfields were included in that secret, unreleased report (which should itself be subpoenaed).

All the evidence points to the facts:

*that Cheney and Bush had wanted to go to war in Iraq well before 9/11,

*that they knew that Saddam had no nuclear or biological weapons,

*that they deliberately manipulated intelligence using British help,

*that they cynically exploited the events of 9/11 by attempting to link that atrocity to Saddam,

*and that they deliberately lied to the American public in order to get the country to back a war in the Middle East - a war whose real objective was control of Iraqi oilfields for the benefit of their cronies in the fossil fuel and finance industries.

That, of course, is in addition to the bribery and corruption in the no-bid government contracts delivered to Bechtel, Halliburton, etc, the illegal spying on the American public, and the outing of covert CIA operatives for political purposes. If anyone ever deserved to be impeached and imprisoned, these clowns do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Strap on the tinfoil Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Strap on the tinfoil Posted by: Lauren
» Way to keep the MAN on his toes, Lauren! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» uhhhh..... Posted by: Illiteratilumen

Comments are closed-

the sole organ??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: particle61 on Jun 18, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.redstateupdate.net has doggedly reported on the 'signing statements' made by the 'sole organ' for two years...see stories
Presidential Signing Statements Inaugurate Legislator-in-Chief, issue 72
Signing Statements Signal Sentiments for Sidestepping Statutes-issue 36,
Bush Administration Opposed to Letters of the Law-issue 85,
Objections to Signing Statements Sustained-issue 65,

redstateupdate.net follows the subversion of the constitution beat- whether its the illegal wiretapping of millions of American phones or sending kidnapped citizens to underground penal colonies-with humor and prescience, and a new gwbush comic every week

www.redstateupdate.net
funny, frightening, free
and 'it's all true'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A special response to ThoughtCriminal.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 18, 2007 5:56 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever he or she is, ThoughtCriminal accused me in a comment above of being a “Republican makeover artist and war apologist.”

Anyone who has visited my King-George.biz website and read its content knows that ThoughtCriminal’s characterization of me is a malicious smear unworthy of comment. At the same time, ThoughtCriminal must be exposed as the divisive Stealth Bushie he or she is.

One thing I’ve always tried to do on AlterNet is present FACTS, not empty rhetoric. Being a Vietnam veteran with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776, I objected to a toilet-bowl characterization made by another reckless blogger, Howie Klein, who called General Petraeus a “disgrace to his uniform.”

Klein based his slur on a remark made by Petraeus that Iraq was showing “signs of normalcy.” On a very small scale, that's true. Yes, chaos reigns in the country but not TOTAL chaos. As I pointed out in my rebuttal, a popular recreation park in Baghdad named “Fun City” has never been struck by terrorists -- homegrown or Al Qaeda.

Does that mean the troop surge is succeeding? Not for a minute and Petraeus never said so.

Moreover, he reportedly predicted yesterday that it would take 10 years to get Baghdad under control. You can bet President Bush wasn’t pleased by that blunt assessment.

So until proof is provided that I'm wrong about Petraeus, I will stick to my original opinion of him. I have no doubt that the general will be truthful about the troop surge when he testifies before Congress in September. One indication is Tony Snow Job's backpedaling on how important the general's report will be.

Meanwhile, I suspect, ThoughtCriminal will continue spreading his criminal thoughts on AlterNet. Such is the price we pay for free speech.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You, sir, are a pompous moron. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: A special response ... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A special response ... Posted by: sethmo
» RE: A special response ... Posted by: Lauren

Comments are closed-

The Executive Executes, The Legislature Legislates
[Report this comment]
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jun 18, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The branches of government were kept separate in their respective roles so that neither could become despotic. The founders of this country reasoned that if we had a democracy as soon as one faction gained significantly more control than all the others, a dictatorship denying rights to all others would follow. So they looked upon the House of Representatives as the democratic part of government and realized that this body had to be checked. They also reasoned that if we had an imperial ruler, he or she would quickly seize all power to themselves and we would immediately be ruled tyrannically, so they reasoned that the president's power also needed to be restricted. If government was ruled by a few, or an elite, they would similar to the president seize all power to themselves and we would then be ruled by oligarchy, so they reasoned that the senate too requiered restriction to it's authority. In order to keep all three bodies in check they envisioned the judiciary as the independent body that would interpret the laws made by the House of Representative and the Senate so that there would be no question as to what action the president was to take. Beyond this, the founders saw that power had to be distributed among the states so that power wouldn't be absolutely centrally concentrated lest despotism set in. So the states were given sovereign jurisdiction over matters that involved only the territory of the state, yet they were bound together in matters that affected them all collectively so that one state wouldn't conquer all the other states. In every aspect of the government of the United States there were checks and balances built in. The president was never intended to interpret law, he was only every intended to carry out the will of congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Presidential signing statements came about outside the Constitutional framework of the United States and are hence illegal because they compromise the balance of power built into the system. Just because signing statements weren't brought into question prior to George W. Bush's tenure in office, doesn't make them any more legal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent analysis. N/T Posted by: Illiteratilumen

Comments are closed-

THIS MUST STOP!!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 18, 2007 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is it going to take to convince our sleeping countryfolk to wake up? We are in a nightmare that is soon to become a night terror. Bu$h and everybody associated with this parasite think they own this country and as such are free to do as they wish. We must make certain they realize that we , not they run this country and we have the law behind us to do so. WE can put these criminals behind bars (or better) if we will just do it. However, WE HAD BETTER DO IT AND DO IT FAST!!! Time is running out.

I recommend an article for all to read. This is a review of the book by Michael Chossudovsky entitled "America's War on Terrorism." This is a long review, but is loaded with valuable, awakening information. This article and the book represented by it describe step by step what is happening here in the "land of the free." Read it!!! I insist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ehhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: hhh Cuossudovsky..... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: gracefounddog
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: THIS MUST STOP!!!! Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

My guess is if only 30% of the 'signing statements' can be associated with ignored laws, it's an...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 18, 2007 9:54 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...improvement over the feds standard operating procedure. My uninformed speculation is that most of the laws go unenforced most of the time.

I do not intend to defend Bush. But I do believe that the pileup of laws written in order to make legislators look and feel good, and which amount to nothing more than gestures thrown at problems, needs to be simplified rather than elaborated. Therefore the signing statements amount to just another tempest in a teapot.

The administration's job is to enforce the laws. A poor administration does a poor job of it. How is it more harmful to be told where the administration does not plan to enforce laws than to be kept guessing? The issue is a pile of pasteboard and persiflage, to borrow a historic description.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Impeachment and prosecution now!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jun 19, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough of this bullshit. When are the feckless Democrats going to do something about this pariah and his accomplices? You got it.....never!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeachment and prosecution now! Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

Hello EagleMB?!?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: themotie on Jun 19, 2007 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You were talking in another thread about Bush's respect for the law. Why don't we continue that discussion here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hello EagleMB?!? Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

Justice Scalia should go back to law school.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jun 19, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Justice Scalia's logic:
"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress." Understanding, to Scalia seems to include xing out provisions Bush has explicitly agreed to by signing the bill.

Does this mean that, if I buy a house, and I am given the contract the other party has already signed, I can simply add a clause revising the contract any way I like before signing it, then hold the other party liable for my changes?

This guy should be impeached along with Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To further elaborate Posted by: brunowe
» RE: To further elaborate Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: To further elaborate Posted by: kelly.nickell

Comments are closed-

More Crazy Talk
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dlf on Jun 19, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I guess the remarks following this story will be construed by some as more crazy talk by a fringe group. For anyone who thinks that the NAU is implausible, this story should be a wake up call. Did you read the part where he xed out the border security provision? There is no such thing as the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. This story makes it abundantly clear we have a unitary government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It’s Official: Majority of American People Are Suffering From Abject Complacency and Apathy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: freethink7 on Jun 19, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans just continue to behave as though, ‘oh nothing, oh nothing’ in response to Bu$h tyrannical behavior. I’ve never seen so many people so complacent and apathetic. That’s how this installed unelected puppet president continues to get away with all the constitutional crimes, jurisprudence abuses, and unprecedented assaults on civil freedoms and civil liberties……people are just too indifferent to the myriad of crimes committed by this tyrant. We the people have the power to organize + fire Bu$h Cheney Inc from their jobs in D.C. and imprison them for all the treason + sedition they’ve committed against our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Network media is the problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Trazom on Jun 19, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The demographics of the United States is such that a significant, and increasing, portion of the population is reaching age 55 and above, as the first wave of baby boomers starts to retire. The majority of these people do not know how to operate computers much less own a computer, hence their access to alternative news is limited at best. We also have an entire new generation of kids and young adults who, for the most part, are indifferent or apathetic toward their own government. Throw in the Superficial Fake News and Celebrity Glamour fascination that is so entrenched in this culture today and you have a recipe for a country in which most people are severely uninformed and/or misinformed.

The people here at Alternet represent only the slightest minority of the American public, probably on the order of 0.1 to 0.5%., once you account for the groups discussed above. Therefore things stated here do not reach that 99.5% of the population, and never will on the present course.

The media is perfectly complicit in their omission (denial?) of coverage of events regarding our body politic in Washington. Since it is a busines first, and purveryor of honest journalism second (and ethical reporter a distant third), we know what stories will continue to win night after night on the boob tube. We need to figure out how to reverse this course. We cannot effect change until a critical portion of the population becomes enlightened about this administration's actions, and future intentions. We can have all the damning evidence we think we need, and the passion that goes along with it, but coming from this small minority it simply won't amount to too much.

As I replied in a previous post I asked how many times have listeners heard the words "signing statements" mentioned on the nightly news, with regard to despotic intentions and/or constitutional infringement. I counted zero. I remember it mentioned once, quickly after Congress passed its Iraq spending bill complete with interim goals, to which the First Fool nullified with yet another signing statement.

We have a perfect storm brewing in Orwellian terms, as the Media reports all is well, the economy is healthy, and terrorism is being kept at bay. Meanwhile, the Constitution is being denigrated, median income is falling and the middle class is disappearing, more people are losing health insurance, and we are slowly losing our civil liberties and freedoms in the name of security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Network media is the problem Posted by: VannaLaRoche

Comments are closed-

Positive Grant...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 19, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Constitution was written under what's called "positive grant"

That means, the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers which are specifically listed in the constitution.

I've read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights plenty of times. I've found absolutely nothing in there which allows the President to do this. It doesn't even mention "signing statements" at all!

Thus, his actions are clearly in violation of the constitution - the law.

Some follow up reading:

"We Must Return to Our Constitution" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Positive Grant... Posted by: Lauren

Comments are closed-

The smirking ape-king
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Jun 19, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How fed up are Americans now? Apparently not enough to DO something about the situation. Oh, sure, we complain and loudly grumble to each other, and not nearly enough to those we hired to look after our best interests. In the meantime, our democracy is becoming unravelled-a veto here, a signing statement there while an emasculated Congress cowers in the shadows, the whole thing presided over by a hideous parody of a man who lacks the brainpower to conceive of, let alone, direct our descent into a ruthless dictatorship. How do you like our situation now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The smirking ape-king Posted by: Trazom
» RE: The smirking ape-king Posted by: Lauren

Comments are closed-

Thankfully we have the Democrats in power
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Soco on Jun 19, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my commonly sarcastic way I state the obvious yet again...

Just be happy Lieberman isn't the Vice President, cause once upon a time he was Gore's running mate. Thanks Conny! So, how's Pelosi working out for us? Ehh, nicht so gut?

Because we all know carbon units are going to save the planet.

So tell me, any real difference between Democrats and Republicans? Looks like Democratic voters are suckers too. I guess it'll take a white female president and a black male VP to really make us feel good about the continued self-destruction of our most beloved country. I'd bet Barack O' Clinton will find those previous signing statements, let's say "Somewhat useful."

Concerning Iran
"All options are on the table."
-- Bush, Clinton, Obama

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

so what's the plan-how do we stop these traitors?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hayduke1 on Jun 19, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
seriously,
we all talk about how bad these scum are for our nation and our world, but what can we actually do to stop them?
we elected the dems to the majority, they do nothing, or worse, remain complicit in all of the crimes.

obviously, we must do something, but what?

where and when does the revolution begin?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bush is more "Soviet" than American, and soon to be Dictator..!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jun 19, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this article details the use of signing statements and I agree completely that they are intended to suspend the rule of law and in reality place G.W. Bush above the law...

The recent revelations as to the violations of the Hatch Act of 1939 and the Presidential Records Law of 1971 I think, it shows a total disregard for the Rule of Law by Bush and those sycophant shyster attorney's who follow and surround him..!

Bush and Rove and Gonzales are more Soviet than American, they are loyal to party and power of party over our Nation..!

Their practices are truly Soviet and they are moving towards Dictatorship more everyday...

The Unitary Executive is an assault on our very system of government, intended to wipe away the three equal branches especially that branch the Legislative which is the branch of the people..!

Bush believes as do his sycophant usurper lawless ghoul traitor supporters, in government for the Bushes, by the Bushes and of the Bushes..

Sam Alito is a pure total shameless traitor to all that America has ever stood for and Chertoff will be the American Albert Speer once HSPD-20 is enacted, as well as NSPD-51 these are the ultimate signing statements, although called Presidential Directives, were this attempted in Rome during the Republic, well you consider what they would have done..!

So we see the Signing Statements, The Presidential Directives intended to create Dictatorship, the huge multiple violations of the Presidential Records Law, and the violations of the Hatch Act , violating the FISA law, systemic Torture institutionalized, The NSA spying on Americans when will it end..!

Why has Nancy Pelosi betrayed America, and it's people by suspending the Constitution and our laws and taken Impeachment off the table, is she truly a co-conspirator..in this plot against America and it's very system..?

Why hasn't one Congressmen or Senator said one word about NSPD-51 or HSPD-20 are they afraid knowing it's enforcement and the crack down by Blackwater the Presidents private and secret army, and KBR is coming and we shall become a nation of oppression and detention camps..that they KBR are building..?

Why hasn't Hillary Clinton mentioned these dangerous blatant treasonous papers..?

Or Edwards or Obama are they all a part of this plot..?

Our Attorney General Gonzales and Karl Rove are obvious blatant criminals so our Justice department is run by a criminal and the White House operates as a Unitary Soviet style Dictatorship..!

These are the most dangerous treasonous people ever in charge of our government ever, and where is our media where are our Congress and Senate..on this NSPD-51 why is it being ignored by them, has the deal already been struck will the bin-Laden's and Bushes arrange another attack some where any where in the world, so Bush can declare himself Dictator under NSPD-51..?

Remember you lose your Republic and freedom in increments and ours is slipping away, and will never return once it's gone..!

Arrest Warrants should be issued by the Judiciary committee for Gonzlaes and Karl Rove immediately..to begin with..!

This is treason and nothing less than treason against our very system..!

These are the very people Jefferson and Franklin warned us about..they're here, they're here now and more of a threat to our Republic than al-Qaeda could ever be..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

An American
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Patriot of the USA on Jun 19, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that we have a perfect holiday coming up where we ought to finally do something regarding this unscrupulous, arrogant bunch of less than bright people who have somehow been allowed into our White House. I would like to propose that we declare our independence from this so-called administration on the Fourth of July. At that time we could actually take back our Constitution from these people. After all George has been heard to say the Constitution is only a piece of paper. We respect it and revere it so let's do something about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An American Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

The easiest way to get Scalia off the bench.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 19, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is to encourage him to have frequent hunting trips with Dick Cheney!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Unitary Executive Theory = the Fuhrer Principle
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BeeGee on Jun 19, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler also proclaimed himself the ultimate judge of what was lawful. This was called the Fuhrer Principle in the Third Reich and was not accepted as defensible by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

As a previous poster mentioned, some recent executive orders are even more dictatorial than the signing statements mentioned in this article. The following is the official White House link to the latest. In these, Bush gives himself the right to declare martial law and suspend the government in case an even occurs that he, The Decider, decides is serious enough to do so -- I kid you not...

Click Here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Signing statements
[Report this comment]
Posted by: walt1944 on Jun 19, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Signing statements Posted by: zyclop

Comments are closed-

Enough....!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chabuka on Jun 19, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget subpoenas...! GUTLESS COWARDLY CONGRESS.... Issue some damn arrest warrants

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nough....! Posted by: thehousedog

Comments are closed-

It Can't Be That Bad!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 19, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can a person with a vocabulary like this pose a serious threat to anything?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Can't Be That Bad! Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

Scalia
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 19, 2007 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting that according to Scalia we must give equal weight to the President's interpetation of a law compared with that of the Congress . The problem with that , is while the President can Veto a law passed by the Congress , the Congress can NOT do anything similair to Presidential Signing Satetments even if he says Black is white .
The founders were always concerned with the powers of the Executive not so much so with the powers of the Congress .
Wonder how Scalia would react to the idea that the President's interpetation of a law is of the same weight as
a ruling by the Supreme Court .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

More and more the Constitution withers away
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jun 19, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Signing statements', yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (unless Stark County District Library caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
-----------------

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

End this madness?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Piscivore on Jun 19, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Ron Paul couldn't do that. We're going to have another civil war in six to eight years. Then it'll stop.

In the meantime, worse is better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

DICTATOR = DECIDER = UNITARY EXECUTIVE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Jun 19, 2007 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, we've crossed over an invisible line into a place that Rome entered right prior to the Imperial period. BV$H like Caesar has crossed the Rubicon and Congress like the Roman Senate long ago is either going to allow him to push them aside or stand in his way. He's certainly not acting like your typical "Lameduck" thats for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

stop financially supporting TV and their corporate advertisers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reverendg on Jun 19, 2007 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let them know about it. Turn off the news. Stop buying the products. E-mail, letters galore, letting them know they will be the first to hang when TSHTF. Until you change how money works, nothing will change. The fact that the TV news lies to us bald faced, means we should not even bother with them and work on your friends and neighbors to read the truth. Also, high on the list of grave problems confronting us is Peak Oil and rising gas prices...this will be a terrible emergency and we have been lied to over and over. Then Bush says "We are addicted to Oil, as though he never knew anything until the day before the State of the Nation speech. Hunker down everybody, we are in for the blow of our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Dems Shut Conyers Up - Now Where is Hillary and Pelosi???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 19, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know where I am coming from on this one. The Dems are being just a bunch of hot air. Conyers was the only one with the guts to start impeachment proceedings, and the Dems shut him down. So , what have we got now? Sure, Hillary and Pelosi are going to rant and rave, but, in the end they will do just as they have done so far on the Iraq war, absolutely, positively nothing. So who is going to be stopping King George, not the people we elected! They are too busy cowering every time the word "terrorist" is said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hypocrisy from the left to attack Bush for deprivation of rights, when reno/clinton's actions led to
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 19, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
two dozen American children burning to death at Waco.

The left's hysteria regarding any move Bush makes is purely based on ideology.

In fact, I am challenging all leftists on this blog to name two dozen Americans (equal to the number of children burned to death at Waco) who have had their constitutional rights denied without legal oversight.

In addition, the left's hypocrisy continues by their desire to gut the only part of the constitution that puts teeth into the protection of the Bill of Rights -- the 2nd amendment.

The left's opposition to the means to defend the 1st amendment confirms logically that they are simply ideologues not interested in preserving rights but promoting their socialist agenda.

that agenda = govt control over private property and transactions between private citizens &
forcing secular socialist social policies on a people who dont want anything to do with socialism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

FORCED PUBLIC EDUCATION IS AMERICA'S MOST SERIOUS AFFRONT TO LIBERTY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 19, 2007 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
note the hypocrisy from the left, who will justifiably criticize the feds for certain intrusions into the Constitutional rights of US citizens.

YET, for hypocritical ideological motives, they love the idea of a thought control police in the form of a public school monopoly in the US.

Will America be truly free when the reigns of education are 99% under govt control?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Too Late
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blookanoo on Jun 19, 2007 8:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dream on. They'll pull off another false flag like 911 and then declare martial law. People are so out to lunch--they are spraying the shit out of our skies with chemtrails, and 911 was an inside job too. These are facts. One only needs to open one's eyes, but we North Americans are too brain-dead to even see things that are right in front of our faces. So we are doomed to an ugly future. A bad sci-fi movie staring Charleton Heston coming soon to a planet near you suckers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

OTHER MEDIA TO CHECK OUT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chamela on Jun 19, 2007 9:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.sandersresearch.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.onlinejournal.com
http://www.larouchepub.com
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&idioma=en
http://www.carolynbaker.org

This news story is old news and is therefore useless information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Dem = Rep = self serving and owned
[Report this comment]
Posted by: illit on Jun 20, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only way to force 'our' leaders to listen to the electorate is to vote them out and the ends of their terms. After several elections they'll finally understand that WE own them - not the lobbies & big business.
It will be a tough dozen years or so, tho probably not much worse than what we've had.

And 'no' - a 3rd party will not help. We've ended up with our loser Gov. Perry in spite of the fact that 61% of us voted AGAINST him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I forgot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: illit on Jun 20, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Replacing them all might prove to be moot with the imposition of the paperless, auditless voting machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RON PAUL WILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND USE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 20, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HIS VETO POWER NOT GET AROUND THE CONSTITUTION LIKE BUSH DOES. REQUIRE THAT ALL CANDIDATES PROMISE UNDER LOSS OF OFFICE IF THEY BREAK THE PROMISE NOT TO USE PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING ORDERS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

congratulations to all for a sound dialogue on this dangerous move towards tyranny.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 20, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many times on AlterNet, the dialogue is just name calling. There were many sound postings and disgreements were argued based on historical facts and law. I am pleased to see the number of folks who understand our Constitution and who wish to defend it.

IMO, WE MUST GET BEHIND RON PAUL IF WE ARE TO SAVE WHAT IS LEFT TO OUR BELOVED CONSTITUTION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The enemy within.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 20, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am becoming more convinced with each passing day that some AlterNeters are either psychotic or stealth Bushies posing as progressives.

Prime examples on this thread are ThoughtCriminal, KeepsonTickn, Brunowe and Rinthy, all of whom attacked me in my Bushwhacking comment above titled, “Another indicator of White House corruption.”

The same thing happened today on the AlterNet thread, "Shop 'Til the Earth Drops," when I wrote harmlessly about gardening and called myself a “full-time” investigative journalist -- which I am, good or bad.

The belligerent blogger was “Edith,“ who tore into me with a vengeance, apparently to discredit my research and destroy my reputation.

To ThoughtCriminal, KeepsonTickn, Brunowe, Rinthy, Edith and other AlterNeters who have made baseless, mean-spirited comments about me: What the hell is wrong with you people?

Don’t you know divisiveness and infighting among progressives is what the White House loves? At the very least, instead of insults and empty rhetoric, quit hiding behind your AlterNet aliases and write under your REAL name using facts the way I do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The enemy within. Posted by: Trazom
» RE: The enemy within. Posted by: Nick

Comments are closed-

why emulate violent criminals Jak?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hayduke1 on Jun 21, 2007 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your name leads one to believe your mind is, let's say, not right.
your credibility as a thinking human is nil, just by virtue of carrying on the name of well known human waste.

go away jak ass, get a real life, and start thinking.

and yes, I'm attacking the messenger without addressing the message--because there's no real message besides---"I'm dirt, I'm going to make mud"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I have no problem with your article but
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 60's survivor on Jun 23, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it should be noted that as much as Bush has done it, Mr. Clinton was doing it just as much as well. Both are doing something which violates the spirit of the Republican government but the danger is to think the the problem is conervative versus liberal. The problem is finding men and/or women who are constitutional rather than personal politics oriented.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What the article means
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 23, 2007 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Translation of the article: George W. Bush is ruling by
decree. "Rules by decree" is the definition of a dictator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
Radical Anti-choice Group Rocked by Founder Resignations
 
Clownish Far-Right Lawmaker Calls for Another Administration Official to Resign
 
How Fair Are the Criticisms of Rahm Emanuel?
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  2. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  3. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  4. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  5. One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
  6. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  7. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
  8. Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
  9. Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
  10. Top 10 Problems with America Killing Its Own Citizens
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG