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

[motivez]

[

Bush says he can edit security reports

President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

]

Holy shit, I want to just bold the entire article. I mean, honestly, is there anything that this Administration feels they don't have the power to do?

Who cares about what laws Congress passes anymore, when Bush can just say

"Even though law specifically says A, I'm going to interpret it to mean Z, and pretend A is meaningless! " ...?

That last thing is just a huge laugh. I guess we shouldn't have people running some of the most critical agencies this nation has with experience, because that would just make too much sense.

[Scrum]

I wonder how these signing statements would hold up under judicial review?

[SICKGUY]

$10 bucks says one of our conservative members will say something like "i dont see what the big deal is, its nothing new"

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

$10 bucks says one of our conservative members will say something like "i dont see what the big deal is, its nothing new"

Anyone who doesn't think the court has gotten extremely political needs only to look at Bush v Gore, where 3 extremely different political philosophies (AS, SDO, WR) all came down that the federal government should interfer in a state matter and decide an election

[sj23]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I wonder how these signing statements would hold up under judicial review?

What judical review?

[Kytro]

Where do signing staments get legal force from? According to wiki:

No United States Constitution provision, federal statute or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Anyone who doesn't think the court has gotten extremely political needs only to look at Bush v Gore, where 3 extremely different political philosophies (AS, SDO, WR) all came down that the federal government should interfer in a state matter and decide an election

we should make a thread about that

[ballz2wallz]

I don't know enough about how these things work to base my decision on a news article. My guess is that nobody in here knows much about the issue either, except what the news article says. It seems some say it's within his right, others say it's not. We'll see what it all really means.

[6SpeedTA95]

It is within his right its been going on for years. That doesn't mean that I agree with it but it is within the rights of the president. I personally think they should do away with that like htey did the line item veto.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

It is within his right its been going on for years. That doesn't mean that I agree with it but it is within the rights of the president. I personally think they should do away with that like htey did the line item veto.

If it is truly within the rights of the President, then surely I don't see anything wrong with it, despite the fact that some people don't like it. It's kind of like that free speech argument that continues to pop up; some people might not like what others have to say, but it's still their right to say it.

That's why I say I don't really know the rights of the President enough to comment on this.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Where do signing staments get legal force from? According to wiki:

and that is exactly why most people don't care - this is just a rallying point for Bush-haters.

If Bush does something contrary to the laws, the remedy is in court and his signing statements will not be part of the decision.

[avsp]

This is outrageous

If it really is the case that the President can go against the express wishes of the legislature then why bother voting

Signings are bad enough, (but i can see the case for nuances etc), ..., but this is ridiculous

I cant not think of a single regular poster, regardless of poltical hue, who has taken a position that would agree with this.

For a start it totally discredits the US case for spreading democracy. It a "true face" victory for Jihadists for a start

F*ck me, it makes me want to write to your congressman.

Still as b2w says it needs checking out, ..., but if true then I suggest that y'all do something about this.

Ypu want to raise the sites profile? THIS is the issue to do it, ..., without partisan bickering

[7th Ninjai]

In my opinion, Bush has used signing statements as a line item veto which is cleary unconstitutional. According to the Constitution, the President has two choices when a bill reaches his desk. He can sign it and the entire bill becomes law or he can veto the bill and send it back to Congress for a re-write or a re-vote to override the veto. What he cannot do is use a statement which declares some parts of the bill "unconstitutional" in his view and use said statement to nullify the parts of the bill that he disagrees with. This is essentially a line item veto - a power which the Supreme Court ruled under Clinton's administrator that President does not have. The act of attaching a signing statement to a bill is not unconstitutional, the act of using a signing statement to change the provisions of a bill is.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

It is within his right its been going on for years. That doesn't mean that I agree with it but it is within the rights of the president. I personally think they should do away with that like htey did the line item veto.

It could fall under the "executive order" section of the presidents rights

but then again, they hold no weight in the constitution and are mearly a "direction document" for the people that fall under the president. EO's are not laws, they have no power.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

[]

Holy shit, I want to just bold the entire article. I mean, honestly, is there anything that this Administration feels they don't have the power to do?

Who cares about what laws Congress passes anymore, when Bush can just say

"Even though law specifically says A, I'm going to interpret it to mean Z, and pretend A is meaningless! " ...?

That last thing is just a huge laugh. I guess we shouldn't have people running some of the most critical agencies this nation has with experience, because that would just make too much sense.

Where is the link to this story?

[avsp]

Nothing incriminating so far, its about money

H. R. 5441 27 Improvements account specifically identified in the Joint Explanatory Statement (House Report 109 241) accompanying Public Law 109 90 for the Fast Response Cutter, the service life extension program of the current 110-foot Island Class patrol boat fleet, and accelerated design and production of the Fast Response Cutter, $78,693,508 are rescinded. (b) ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION. For necessary expenses of the United States Coast Guard for Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements , there is appropriated an additional $78,693,508, to remain available until September 30, 2009, for the service life extension program of the current 110-foot Island Class patrol boat fleet and the acquisition of traditional patrol boats ( parent craft ). SEC. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by any person other than the Privacy Officer appointed under section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142) to alter, direct that changes be made to, delay, or prohibit the transmission to Congress of any report prepared under paragraph (6) of such section.

but I'm notoriously bad at this sort of thing, ..., i just did a search on 'alter'
on "H.R.5441 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"


i'm may be hopelessly wrong, ..., someone please check on my work, .., fanx

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Where is the link to this story?

this at lthe very least seems very similar, ...., but i've not checked entirely
Chicago Tribune news | Bush bucks Congress on privacy reporting

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by hsmith

It could fall under the "executive order" section of the presidents rights

but then again, they hold no weight in the constitution and are mearly a "direction document" for the people that fall under the president. EO's are not laws, they have no power.

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?

[avsp]

the fema bit

(c) ADMINISTRATOR. (1) IN GENERAL. The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. (2) QUALIFICATIONS. The Administrator shall be appointed from among individuals who have (A) a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security; and (B) not less than 5 years of executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector.

pdf of the bill at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...441enr.txt.pdf

still tryinmg to find signings

[avsp]

arent signings just a notice from the president about how he is going to interpret the law?

as such they provide an opportunity for congress to, theoretically, pass new laws 'tightening up' the wording or whatever

its sort of an 'informal arrangement' isnt it?