posted June 27, 2006 11:45 AM            

"There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passsed by Congress — including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

"There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview," Specter, R-Pa., said.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," he added. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.

"Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events," said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. "The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11."

"Congress has been more active, the president has been more active," she added. "The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute."

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

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

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

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

"The president is not required to (veto)," Boardman said.

"Of course he's not if he signs the bill," Specter snapped back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted June 27, 2006 01:09 PM            

If the Congress believes Bush is violating or abusing his authority by objecting to the enlargement of Congressional powers, Congress should take the Bush administration straight to the United States Supreme Court for a decision and quit their whining.

Self serving statements by Congressional members and members of the leftist press don't cut any ice.

posted June 27, 2006 07:42 PM            

When Bush pens a signing document he is really saying...OK, you passed legislation relating to one government program or another...however you do not have the authority to tell me or any other President HOW to administer that program or HOW to implement the legislation. Those are Executive Branch functions.

Bush is laying the paperwork for a legal challenge...should Congress ever decide to press the issue...just as other Presidents have in the past.

And Congress is ever attempting to enlarge their authority in the government and reduce the power of the Chief Executive of the United States.

Now, I don't remember you or any other leftist moaning, whining, wailing or stamping your feet when...Clinton penned signing documents objecting to certain provisions of Congressional legislation.

posted June 27, 2006 08:14 PM            

Like in the KS thread. Everyone should just get over Magus' words cause you know, that's just him (to his supporters), but Lotus needs to crawl in a hole for telling people to "go within".

Moral relativity is annoying. Bush is Satan for doing __________ (fill in the blank act that all presidents do) but if Carter or Clinton did the same thing, it's OK cause they agree with his politics.

Gotta love hypocrisy. Without it, you could actually take people and the things they say at face value, knowing their acts back up their words, and who wants that?

posted June 27, 2006 10:58 PM            

For themselves, whatever it is, it's perfectly justified because...........fill in the justification here....................

You are in trouble now Isis. Don't you know they've all moved on...like moveon.org and as Hillary would say...."that's ancient history".

posted June 28, 2006 12:45 AM            

So who's really whining here?

I see a boo-hoo about Congress. I see a boo-hoo about the press. I see a boo-hoo about presidential powers. I see boo-hoo's about leftists and Clinton. And I see a boo-hoo about Kindred Spirits. Wah! Get over it.

posted June 28, 2006 12:04 PM            

I notice you were, as usual, unable to respond...to what was a clearly defined argument directed against the encroachment by Congress on the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

You cite Arlen Specter acoustic, a republican...small case, as in your case...to bolster the article's argument. But Specter is a member of Congress and one of those who have consistently attempted to broaden congressional power at the expense of the Executive and therefore broaden their own power.

But Specter is a RINO...republican in name only. He's very dismissible for a variety of reasons, including egomania. The only reason the President supported his reelection was because Specter is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the President received promises from Specter he would give a fair hearing to the Bush nominees for the Supreme Court. I would rather have had the real Republican who ran against Specter in Pennsylvania. Were it not for the Bush support for Specter's reelection effort, Specter would be sitting home now collecting his bloated government pension.

Specter is not only out of touch with Republicans, he's out of touch with the wartime security laws of America, the court cases supporting those security laws and the court cases supporting the war time powers of the President...cases reaching all the way to the United States Supreme Court and decided in favor the Executive who is charged with being both the Commander in Chief of US military forces and with the duty to protect the nation and our people.

Now, this idiot is challenging the President with legislative acts...FISA, which are not in touch with Court decisions and which fly squarely in the face of the President's authority in war time and otherwise, to gather intelligence against foreign enemies. A constitutional authority which another idiot...Jimmy Carter signed away...but only for himself because Constitutional authority cannot be removed by acts of the Congress...only by amendments to the Constitution.

posted June 28, 2006 12:10 PM              

What I am hearing here is that once again it is okay for us to do it but not okay for the liberals. The pot calling the kettle black is not a valid argument.

Isis, you won't go to hell for bringing up KS, but it shows that you don't let go and move on with your life. It also shows that you don't have any valid argument to present here so you resort to that instead.

I think it's a very good sign that even Republicans are now starting to speak out and question the Constitutional violations of the Bush administration and their tactics of not only interpreting the Constitution to fit their agendas but their disdain for the other branches of government in the governing process established by the Constitution. These Republicans like Specter are doing that because they value democracy and the Constitution more than party line thinking. Their loyalty is to the Constitution and democracy instead of a political party and one man. True Americans.

It should be a red flag to any American when a president acts the maverick and goes against established norms of governing in the U.S. It is a sign that this president is a threat to democracy.

posted June 28, 2006 12:23 PM            

quote:

---

In Oral Communication classes in college I learned that name calling in an attempt to discredit those with opposing views is a sign of ignorance due to lack of debating skills and no valid arguments to the contrary. ...Mirandee

---

That ring any "ignorance" bells for you Mirandee?

That Commander Corruption did exactly the same thing Bush is doing to protect the constitutional authority of the President but without the haranguing, whining, shrieking, wailing and pants wetting of leftists....ring any "hypocrisy" bells for you Mirandee?

posted June 28, 2006 12:26 PM              

quote:

---

And Congress is ever attempting to enlarge their authority in the government and reduce the power of the Chief Executive of the United States.

---

What is interesting is that you would use that argument here, Jwhop considering that this is a Republican controlled Congress.

What you said regarding the Constitution is in err, Jwhop. Anyone who has ever read the Constitution or knows how our government is supposed to function knows that what you said here is not true. There was a checks and balance system established by the Constitution to insure that one man or one branch did not have total control of this government. The Three branches of government were established for that reason, checks and balance. That's government 101, Jwhop.

What you accuse Congress of doing is what the Executive Branch has always been doing - attempting to gain more and more control. It has been done moreso under the Bush regime than any other President in history. Power grabbing. Using 9/11 to gain more and more power over not only the U.S. government and it's people but also the world as a whole. All evidence has pointed to that and yet you continue to deny all the evidence in favor of worshipping one man and actually bragging that he is "the most powerful man in the world." That is not the thinking of anyone who values democracy and freedom. It is not valuing democray and freedom to want one man to have all the power. It is actually treasonous thinking in a Constitutionally operated democracy.

What is also interesting is that you also discredit any Republican who disagrees with Party line thinking. I have noticed that in other rightest too.

I would be totally shocked though if you didn't totally agree with everything that Bush said and did and ignore anything that differentiates or questions what he says and does, Jwhop.

posted June 28, 2006 01:24 PM              

you can only rely on You-of-You. ...

posted June 28, 2006 02:01 PM            

I don't know what accounts for the lack of neural activity among leftists but we always find them arguing on the wrong side of issues. This is true even when the evidence is presented via Court cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that their arguments are wrong and their assumptions are wrong.

For arguing beyond that point and in the face of actual Court decisions, Courts which specifically looked at the President's authority to authorize warrantless wire taps and surveillance to gather foreign intelligence and found the President DOES have that inherent and Constitution authority, we must conclude leftists are either brain dead or lying for political purposes OR both.

UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW
Argued September 9, 2002
Decided November 18, 2002
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001
Consolidated with 02-00
On Motions for Review of Orders of the United States
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(Nos. 02-662 and 02-968)

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

I have posted this information here..before but you ignored it and apparently you and your leftist friends are too damned lazy or unmotivated to look it up for yourselves before you shoot your mouths off and accuse the President, OR, the truth means nothing to you and you don't feel bound to govern your opinions by decisions of the Courts of the United States.

Either way, your suggestion you know anything about the intended workings of the US government are entirely false. As false as your customary lying arguments against the President.

Now, how about your supposed learned statement that those who name call others lack the ability to make reasonable arguments and are ignorant?

It is you Mirandee who has accused the President of being both a liar and a thief and though I've asked you repeatedly for any proof, even a shred of proof, you continue in your lying accusations.

Now Mirandee, is that "ignorance" or do the same rules and homespun leftist philosophy not apply to leftists?

posted June 28, 2006 02:24 PM            

I might bring up the last time I was on the toilet if I feel it's analagous to a point we're discussing. I suppose that means I haven't yet learned to let "it" go, so-to-speak.

I was not making an argument, I was stating an opinion. Might wanna look the definition of the two up before you jump at me for stating my opinion.

posted June 28, 2006 02:32 PM            

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that Congress may not encroach upon the Constitutional authority of the Executive by legislative enactments...settled many times in the Courts of the United States. Pointed out also that Bush is objecting to Congressional efforts to do so by using signing documents to lay the paper trail to sustain that position if an issue is ever taken to the courts...either by Congress or by a President, present or future. Pointed out also that this is exactly the same procedure Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and other Presidents used to preserve the inherent powers vested in the Executive by the Constitution of the United States and yet, you don't get it.

Tell me acoustic, when you attempt to flip that switch on, the one to turn on your intellectual activity and nothing happens; do you ever consider you might have an internal intellectual short circuit?

posted June 28, 2006 08:02 PM            

I understand that signing statements have been used as a means of standing up for executive authority. What I don't get is why this President more than any President in the history of our country has felt the need to both sign/approve every piece of legislation as well as attempt to veto parts of it he feels his lawyers can defend. Does he have trouble saying, "No?" Does he not find that attempts to encroach upon his power disconcerting enough to actually exercise the power of veto? Has Congress become so inept as to not have a clue about the Constitution and what they can legislate?

posted June 29, 2006 12:42 PM              

quote:

---

"Bush is a liar and stole from the American people"
That ring any "ignorance" bells for you Mirandee?

---

No, because I only spoke the reality of the situation there, Jwhop. Another reality that you refuse to see.

Bush's policies are only designed for the wealthy, his policies have taken away jobs from the working class Americans, medical benefits, his policies have created a two class system in America - the haves and have nots, and he has in fact and in reality created more poor Americans for every year that he has been in office than any other president in history. The average American citizen has been given the tab for his war on terror and our children for generations to come while he gives tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. He is robbing us of our clean air and water and raping the economy. Those are only realities. Not lies or distortions of the truth. He has done nothing for the working class people or needy in this country. They do not exist in his mind or in his policies. He has only taken more and more away from what constitutes the majority of citizens in the U.S.

If that is not stealing from the American people you tell me what is, Jwhop. He has in reality stolen the future from an awful lot of American citizens.

I cannot expect anyone as fixed in their own opinions and thoughts and world views as you are to see things as they truly are, Jwhop. But is not I and others who are doing the lying. It is you who are lying to yourself and everyone else. Not that you mean to lie. But it is your choice to believe the lies told to you by this administration instead of looking any further into what is really lies and what is reality.

posted June 29, 2006 12:42 PM            

Yep, you keep putting that idea forward but what you say here is in diametric opposition to your contention. For instance, you wonder why Bush is using signing documents more than other Presidents, assumably, that indicates some wrongdoing, some usurpation of power, some break with past tradition or convention.

Wrong, the tradition and the convention are well established...by precedent. The reason for the upswing of signing documents is the upswing in objectionable insertions in legislation by Congress. The war and Congress attempting to micromanage the war by inserting reporting requirements into legislation. Counter-terrorism and Congress attempting to be briefed at all times on top secret programs which fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Executive.

There are many reasons but the reasons don't matter in the least. The main point, which was always the main point, the point which I told you in the beginning was THE point, is that Congress is attempting to encroach on the Executive turf and Congress is being rebuffed, as such attempts should be rebuffed.

Your statement the President is attaching signing documents to every piece of legislation is overblown acoustic...unless you have any actual proof that's true.

What is obvious acoustic...to most people, is that within the main body of legislation, there are needed provisions with which the President agrees. Legislation which takes the Congress time to hash out and agree on. The President is not against all or even the main provisions of the legislation or he would veto the entire bill. Instead, when Congress attempts to slip a provision into legislation which encroaches on the Executive authority, he issues a signing document then implements the legislation...as the Constitution gives the President the authority to do, under his, not congressional, direction and control as the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of government.

It would appear, Arlen Specter is not ahead, but is rather not appreciated by the large majority of Americans who see the President's actions in going after terrorist cells in the US and abroad as exactly the right policy for America. The public approves of wiretapping and surveilling known and suspected terrorists. The public approves of finding and cutting off their funding and using the information to find THEM and deal with them. These are the issues Arlen Specter is questioning and on these issues, Specter is not supported and is not ahead of the curve as you suggest.

So, it appears you're wrong on every issue you've raised. Of course, there will always be that leftist choir who will swallow any story written by a fellow leftist and adopt their political talking points. But the tide of public opinion is turning against the leftist press, which are increasingly being seen as actual traitors for exposing top secret programs, and against leftist congressional members whose statements give aid and comfort to America's enemies, get more American service personnel killed, gets more Iraqi civilians killed and prolongs the war in Iraq.

posted June 29, 2006 12:57 PM            

quote:

---

"Bush is a liar and stole from the American people"

That ring any "ignorance" bells for you Mirandee?

---

Without doubt Mirandee, your response is the very essence of ignorance...by your own standards. Keep slinging the lies. I'd give you a 24/7 national platform to do so.

Only a far left kook would make any of the statements you've made here and made in the past at CE. Statements which helped destroy Greg's site.

Fortunately, most people don't pay a bit of attention to moveon, daily KOS, democrat underground, huffington idiots or any of the other whining, hand wringing crybabies from the far radical left. You and your leftist radical friends are..or already have destroyed the democrat party.

**edit**

Mirandee, it's the left who looks to government to solve every problem, provide for every need and protect every person..even from the consequences of their own actions. Those are not Republican ideas, those ideas come straight from Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideology.

I don't need the government to do a damned thing for me personally...except stay the hell out of my way, stay out of my business and let me decide how best to live my life and seek my own fortune and happiness.

Those ideas Mirandee, send shivers down the spine of every leftist, Marxist, Socialist, Leninist, Stalinist in the world. Your assertions are nonsense.