Sweet! New Bush signing statement declares he has the power to...

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If the signing orders have no power then why does everyone get their panties in a wad over it? I've read a bunch of articles on it and came to the conclusion that it was ridiculous because it makes writing the law effectively useless. You're saying that the signing orders have no power...how is that?

they have no power because they don't mean anything. Any power of the president must come from either the constitution itself or an act of Congress. Since neither of those grant the Pres the power to amend laws with signing statements, they are completely meaningless.

The whiners need a basic lesson in US government...

[avsp]

I'm too drunk to find the actual signings & is an appropriations bill the same as a spending bill?, ..., presumably not

but if it is the 'edit privacy report' bit isnt correct IMO, ..., he just cant use money apportioned by the bill to 'alter, delay' etc the report. the law doesnt seem to say that the president cant edit the report if he wishes

either way i dont like signings

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Phantom

they have no power because they don't mean anything. Any power of the president must come from either the constitution itself or an act of Congress. Since neither of those grant the Pres the power to amend laws with signing statements, they are completely meaningless.

The whiners need a basic lesson in US government...

You think because they 'officially hold no power', that they aren't being used as a way to circumvent the will of Congress, the intent of laws, etc? That's an incredibly naive position, especially when confronted with the fact that his signing statements have been the justification for explicit violation of the law -- ie: torturing after the McCain torture bill, ignoring FISA, etc, etc..

Talk about a lesson in US government, more like a lesson in the reality of how this Administration conducts itself.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by motivez

You think because they 'officially hold no power', that they aren't being used as a way to circumvent the will of Congress, the intent of laws, etc? That's an incredibly naive position, especially when confronted with the fact that his signing statements have been the justification for explicit violation of the law -- ie: torturing after the McCain torture bill, ignoring FISA, etc, etc..

Talk about a lesson in US government, more like a lesson in the reality of how this Administration conducts itself.

There hasn't been an administration that avoided disobeying laws. Bush just has the balls (or stupidity) to say he's going to do it before he does.

Presidents have always done whatever they want, and have been checked by the courts. Nothing is changing here.

[thomez]

the funny part, and what upsets people, is the fact that Bush (via Alberto Gonzalez) really believes that signing statements are legally just peachy (unitary executive), and that is the "law" they intend to follow, until slapped by the courts, which can take years, maybe even until he is out of office on many issues

so Bush's version of the law is what we live under until each discrepancy is addressed by the courts, and his blatant disregard of the written law in favor of his "signing statements version" makes people quite angry, as anyone can see this is an abuse of power and clearly unconstitutional, it just takes a long time to make it legally such

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Phantom

There hasn't been an administration that avoided disobeying laws. Bush just has the balls (or stupidity) to say he's going to do it before he does.

Presidents have always done whatever they want, and have been checked by the courts. Nothing is changing here.

Except the extent to which it's being done, and the frequency.. and on what issues.

I agree with what thomez said above.

[DosEquis]

hasn't he done like 700+ signing satements already?

[liberalsuck]

That's great news for all Americans.. even the ones who are apparently worried the FBI is going to blackmail them for adultry and whatnot. What do these people have to hide? Chances are people that parinoid are not out there being vocal about this issue at all... so that leaves the bitter partisans, who even at a time like this will make politics out of this. Terrorists are not stupid.. by the time we get a warrent by a judge to search these people chances are they will have moved on. I mean we already know that after the liberal media refused to listen to the intelligence communities plea to keep 'top secret information' top secret.. they ignored it and blabbed it all over the the television and newspapers, and the terrorists started buying up all the disposable cell phones they could get their hands on. How anyone could continue to support liberal/democrats is beyond me. Have you no shame? Or commonsense? Or will to survive? What the hell?!?

[motivez]

Uhm, seems like you're pretty misinformed about the realities of situations involving warrants and suspected terrorists.

There are laws on the books that allow retroactive warrants, so the idea that the Government is somehow forced to sit on its hands and allow terrorists to do whatever in the meantime is completely false.

And let's not forget that in this great nation, someone is innocent of a crime until they are proven guilty in a court of law. That's one of the cornerstones of the way our legal system works..

There's no difference to our nation and say, a nation like Saddam if we're willing to simply violate someones rights because the state thinks they're guilty of a crime.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by liberalsuck

That's great news for all Americans.. even the ones who are apparently worried the FBI is going to blackmail them for adultry and whatnot. What do these people have to hide? Chances are people that parinoid are not out there being vocal about this issue at all... so that leaves the bitter partisans, who even at a time like this will make politics out of this. Terrorists are not stupid.. by the time we get a warrent by a judge to search these people chances are they will have moved on. I mean we already know that after the liberal media refused to listen to the intelligence communities plea to keep 'top secret information' top secret.. they ignored it and blabbed it all over the the television and newspapers, and the terrorists started buying up all the disposable cell phones they could get their hands on. How anyone could continue to support liberal/democrats is beyond me. Have you no shame? Or commonsense? Or will to survive? What the hell?!?

FISA says you can get the warrant 72 hours AFTER the fact. Your argument is as affective as a screen door on a submarine.

How anyone could support any political party, republican or democrat, which blatently violates the constitution in the name of "security" is beyond me.

I have the will to live, the will to live in a free country where I don't have to worry about the government tracking my phone calls. I know I don't have anything to worry about, but its none of their fucking business who I call. If they have enough justification to generate a warrant for up to 72 hours AFTER THE FACT, then so be it. Until then they can mind their fucking business.

[liberalsuck]

3 days is TOO LONG!!! This is a rare case where amending the Constitution is a good idea, if need be. These people are inhuman monsters. Did you happen to see what they did to Nicholas Berg... for example?!? They need to be exterminated like the cockroaches they are!!

[motivez]

Originally Posted by liberalsuck

3 days is TOO LONG!!! This is a rare case where amending the Constitution is a good idea, if need be. These people are inhuman monsters. Did you happen to see what they did to Nicholas Berg... for example?!? They need to be exterminated like the cockroaches they are!!

Uhhh.. did you miss the fact that they can get it AFTER the fact?

IE: They can go ahead and wiretap and surveil someone without the warrant, and then go to a judge within 72 hours of beginning the emergency surveillence.

So you're saying that's too long? The Government should have less time?

Lastly, the people under surveillence are suspected. Perhaps you've forgotten about "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to Americans?

[Diamond Cross]

Doesn't count in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Doesn't count in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

That's quite true, but when it comes to the government secretly using surveillance on someone it matters.