NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush challenges hundreds of laws (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government...

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

...

cause it certainly looks to me like the government of the US constitution has been overthrown.

You're just now figuring this out?

So you call it a coup -- now what? This country was bought and paid for a long time before now.

I think we need some "democracy building" over here.

I think the 2001 election was a coup, because I don't believe Bush actually even won that election.

Hah! That's excellent. Bush can ignore a law if it's unconstitutional. Who decides if it's unconstitutional or not? Bush does!

You're just now figuring this out?

no, i've been saying it for years. but now the media is getting in on the act (even if they avoid the harshest implications).

The constitution is optional

George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Well, if it is a coup, then it is a very long-running coup. But hey, that's a really nice tradition -- ignoring laws you do not like. :rolleyes:

Hah! That's excellent. Bush can ignore a law if it's unconstitutional. Who decides if it's unconstitutional or not? Bush does!

even better, he also gets to decide if he needs to tell anyone that he found it to be unconstitutional or that he is actively violating it.

If the laws were enacted after he took office, why didn't he try to veto them?

Sevenglasses']If the laws were enacted after he took office, why didn't he try to veto them?

no need. his position as military dictator (sorry, "commander-in-chief") lets him violate any law he wants.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting US Supreme Court decision:

In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.

cause it certainly looks to me like the government of the US constitution has been overthrown.

Nope. I don't see any tanks rolling around my streets. I still live in the same house. Im not going hungry. I see people making fun of the current president as usual. Nothing has changed since Clinton. Well...the tree in my backyard is gone... I miss that tree. :(

Ah yes, a coup...since after all, during your typical coups you have the President being mocked by his stand-up twin at the White House Press dinner. Oh, and don't forget Steven Colbert.

I'm not saying he's not ignoring a record number of laws, because he is. But it's no coup.

Thats the nice thing about a two term limit.
Bush will shortly be gone and never return to office, if he doesnt leave his office, then half the country will go crazy and some assorted bad stuff will happen.
But no, the United States has not magically morphed into an Orwellian nightmare state overnight. In United States, TV does not watch you, car does not drive you, and party does not find you.
Yakov pwnz.

Thats the nice thing about a two term limit.
Bush will shortly be gone and never return to office, if he doesnt leave his office, then half the country will go crazy and some assorted bad stuff will happen.
But no, the United States has not magically morphed into an Orwellian nightmare state overnight. In United States, TV does not watch you, car does not drive you, and party does not find you.
Yakov pwnz.

QFTMT.

Thats the nice thing about a two term limit.
That's an interesting response.

"We have a President who's breaking laws here there and everywhere, but he's legally obliged to leave after his second term, so that's tolerable."

>_>

That's an interesting response.

"We have a President who's breaking laws here there and everywhere, but he's legally obliged to leave after his second term, so that's tolerable."

>_>

ZING! :D

Coups are more by armed means...it's more like hitler's rise.

That's an interesting response.

"We have a President who's breaking laws here there and everywhere, but he's legally obliged to leave after his second term, so that's tolerable."

>_>
No, its not tolerable.
It is, however, a solution that doesnt result in lots of angry people, an even worse partisan situation and all the other unpleasantness that comes from impeaching a President.

Coups are more by armed means...it's more like hitler's rise.

alberto fujimori

QFTMT.

?

No, its not tolerable.
It is, however, a solution that doesnt result in lots of angry people, an even worse partisan situation and all the other unpleasantness that comes from impeaching a President.

This is bull! If he broke laws, he should be punished! The Repubs went much further over a BLOW JOB!

Ah yes, a coup...since after all, during your typical coups you have the President being mocked by his stand-up twin at the White House Press dinner. Oh, and don't forget Steven Colbert.

I'm not saying he's not ignoring a record number of laws, because he is. But it's no coup.

and a coup necessitates that the leader never be mocked?

That's an interesting response.

"We have a President who's breaking laws here there and everywhere, but he's legally obliged to leave after his second term, so that's tolerable."

>_>

Well if every nation had a limit on their leaders such as we do(2 x 4 years); how many armed revolts would their be?

and a coup necessitates that the leader never be mocked?
Well...yeah. Coups are typically authoritarian in nature, and authoritarians don't like people speaking out against the government or governmental figures.

This is bull! If he broke laws, he should be punished! The Repubs went much further over a BLOW JOB!
Lying under oath about a blow job in a sexual harassment case and then launching missiles at Iraq to destroy “weapons of mass destruction” on the same day that the women who blowed him was testifying.

This shit has been going on for a long time. Nothing new and certainly not a coup, just the world we live in. Nothing any of us can do about it.

Lying under oath about a blow job in a sexual harassment case and then launching missiles at Iraq to destroy “weapons of mass destruction” on the same day that the women who blowed him was testifying.

This shit has been going on for a long time. Nothing new and certainly not a coup, just the world we live in. Nothing any of us can do about it.

Clinton got grilled and nearly impeached over it, didn't he? Bush did worse stuff, so, yes, he should be impeached.

Clinton got grilled and nearly impeached over it, didn't he? Bush did worse stuff, so, yes, he should be impeached.

As much as I hate capital punishment and patriotism (not to mention laws that are enacted solely to increase the power of the state), G.W. should be hanged for treason.

This is bull! If he broke laws, he should be punished! The Repubs went much further over a BLOW JOB!
Thats politics, Im afraid. Breaking the laws that are written down is fine, if you do it correctly. Breaking the unwritten rules, especially when the opposite party is in a good position to make a big deal out of it, is not so great.
Anyway, thats the problem with either party dominating the government, it throws off the checks and balances. Its going to be much more diffiuclt for Bush to do anything come the next set of congressional elections, both houses will be seeing a good number of Democrats and independants.
And 'The Repubs' is a massive over generalization. There are a number of Republicans who frequently oppose Bush, just as a number of Democrats sometimes support him.

Clinton got grilled and nearly impeached over it, didn't he? Bush did worse stuff, so, yes, he should be impeached.
Never said he shouldn't be impeached. According to the constitution he should have. I've heard of people getting years in prison for lying under oath and I've heard of cops getting fired or jailed for obtaining evidence illegally, but the current situation stands. The political atmosphere does not allow for a power vacuum of that magnitude. It is unfortunate, but once again I say that there is nothing we can do about it except complain.

As much as I hate capital punishment and patriotism (not to mention laws that are enacted solely to increase the power of the state), G.W. should be hanged for treason.
Oh, not again... First someone wants to hang Jane Fonda, and now it is W who is to be sent to the gallows...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

As much as I hate capital punishment and patriotism (not to mention laws that are enacted solely to increase the power of the state), G.W. should be hanged for treason.
Nah. Got to formally swear allegiance to an enemy power for that. That’s why none of the Nam protesters were successfully prosecuted, thank Fuck.

The political atmosphere does not allow for a power vacuum of that magnitude. It is unfortunate, but once again I say that there is nothing we can do about it except complain.

There wouldn't be a vacuum! Cheney would take over and...

Wait...

On second thought, keep Bush there. :p

There wouldn't be a vacuum! Cheney would take over and...

Wait...

On second thought, keep Bush there. :p

Ya know, sometimes I wonder if that isn't the reason Cheney is VP, to keep us from removing Bush only to get someone worse.

Ya know, sometimes I wonder if that isn't the reason Cheney is VP, to keep us from removing Bush only to get someone worse.

Could be. Hmmm if we had removed poppy bush, hmmmm? ;)

Nah. Got to formally swear allegiance to an enemy power for that. That’s why none of the Nam protesters were successfully prosecuted, thank Fuck.
Not to mention that technically the US and the DRV were at peace.

Not to mention that technically the US and the DRV were at peace.
I find it hard to beleive the the North Vietnamese never declared war on the US.

I find it hard to beleive the the North Vietnamese never declared war on the US.
"It seems crazy but you must believe," to quote Rice. They didn't declare war upon the US.

Oh, not again... First someone wants to hang Jane Fonda, and now it is W who is to be sent to the gallows...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Interesting..

So if there's a War on Drugs going on and you do cocaine, is that "adhering to their Enemies"?

Similarly, if there's a War on Terror, and you set in motion policies that increase terrorist recruitment threefold, does that count as giving enemies aid?

Interesting..

So if there's a War on Drugs going on and you do cocaine, is that "adhering to their Enemies"?

Similarly, if there's a War on Terror, and you set in motion policies that increase terrorist recruitment threefold, does that count as giving enemies aid?
No... unless one has sworn fealty to drugs ot to terror. :D

Seriously though, there have not been a declaration of war or a AUMF resolution against either. The authorization of 20/09/2001 is concerned only with the perpetrators of the 11 September attack.

Well...yeah. Coups are typically authoritarian in nature, and authoritarians don't like people speaking out against the government or governmental figures.

and this translates into it being a necessary part of a coup that people who mock the rulers are disappeared or shot?

Coups are more by armed means...it's more like hitler's rise.

Coups almost never involve armed violence. If a coup necessitates violence, it usually means it's going to fail, as the group attempting the coup are unsuccessful in seizing all the necessary aspects of government before their opponents can form an organized resistance to their efforts.

Well...yeah. Coups are typically authoritarian in nature, and authoritarians don't like people speaking out against the government or governmental figures.

Coups are not typically authoritarian. Often times coups are attempted AGAINST authoritarian governments.

This particular proffesor is from Portland State University??? I would trust a evil looking circus clown with a chainsaw outside my door faster than any asshat from Portland State. It is just liberal bullcrap as usual.

You're just now figuring this out?

So you call it a coup -- now what? This country was bought and paid for a long time before now.


It's amazing what good old George wants to do isn't it?

cause it certainly looks to me like the government of the US constitution has been overthrown.

Oh no, this means President George W Bush will not step down-leave office in about two years when the term expires.

Oh no, this means no more anti president Bush jokes allowed.

This means no democrat will ever be elected President, LOL.

President George W Bush for life.

This means a site like Nationstates will not be allowed where we can argue, debate, discuss and share our diffrent economic, politcal and social views with each other.

I am going back to Cuba under Fidel for a 4 year term, on anything that floats, a raft, inner tube, wooden boat, floating cars or taxi, across 90 miles of shark infested waters.

Meh, although I do not support Bush, I think it's pretty hard to obey to every friggin' law.

"It seems crazy but you must believe," to quote Rice. They didn't declare war upon the US.
Ever? During all the years of fighting?

Fucking lol.

Ah yes, a coup...since after all, during your typical coups you have the President being mocked by his stand-up twin at the White House Press dinner. Oh, and don't forget Steven Colbert.

I'm not saying he's not ignoring a record number of laws, because he is. But it's no coup.

It is an overthrow of the rule of law.

It is an overthrow of the rule of law.

and the system of government laid out in that mystical 'constitution' document that merkans are always raving about.

not that that would necessarily be a bad thing - i agree that it needs to be overthrown, though not in the manner the bush movement favors. but people really need to call it what it is, instead of pretending that everything is normal.

Lying under oath about a blow job in a sexual harassment case and then launching missiles at Iraq to destroy “weapons of mass destruction” on the same day that the women who blowed him was testifying.

This shit has been going on for a long time. Nothing new and certainly not a coup, just the world we live in. Nothing any of us can do about it.

You are familiar with the concept of lie by omission, correct? If so, then to be strictly honest, you ought to have mentioned that Clinton ran his target list by Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and the rest of the Republican leadership in the House, and none of them had any problem with his missile attacks. Of course, saying that sort of defangs the whole canard, now doesn't it?

While we are at it, we might also want to mention that Ken Starr himself didn't think that Clinton should have been impeached, that it was entrapment to put him under oath and then spring unimportant questions on him about Monica Lewinsky, that even if he had answered in the affirmative, it would have proven absolutely zilch about the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case, and that under the definition of sexual relations Ken Starr provided, he really didn't have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky.

But all that is neither here nor there. The real point is that presidents have been ignoring some congressional directives for years now, and it hasn't necessarily led to the end of the Republic. Every President from Ford on has refused to abide by the War Powers Act, for instance, yet we have yet to create a military dictatorship. The sheer fact that President Bush has ignored some law is not enough in itself for concern. Rather, it's his assertion that the Presidential power to wage war entitles him to disregard any law that provides concern, because if anything is the grounding for an overthrow of the Republic, that is it.

Nope. I don't see any tanks rolling around my streets. I still live in the same house. Im not going hungry. I see people making fun of the current president as usual. Nothing has changed since Clinton. Well...the tree in my backyard is gone... I miss that tree. :(
Hehehe! You just earned yourself a place on my NS "Buddy" list! :D

I am going back to Cuba under Fidel for a 4 year term, on anything that floats, a raft, inner tube, wooden boat, floating cars or taxi, across 90 miles of shark infested waters.Promise?

The sheer fact that President Bush has ignored some law is not enough in itself for concern. Rather, it's his assertion that the Presidential power to wage war entitles him to disregard any law that provides concern, because if anything is the grounding for an overthrow of the Republic, that is it.

i find it sad that this even needs to be spelled out even after he has openly made these clearly anti-republican claims.


for those just tuning in:
you cannot have a liberal democracy in which the ruler gets to decide which laws (if any) the ruler is bound by. you cannot operate a government based on seperation of powers when one branch is not bound by any of the decisions of the others when it doesn't feel like it. and you cannot have the government established by the US constitution under the policies and actions and claims of the bush administration.

cause it certainly looks to me like the government of the US constitution has been overthrown.
Typical liberal fear-mongering.

Typical liberal fear-mongering.

Typical conservative ignorance.

Typical liberal fear-mongering.
Right--because you'd be fine with all this if it were President Hillary making such claims. Try to look past the partisan part of your ass to see the entire picture sometime.:rolleyes:

Right--because you'd be fine with all this if it were President Hillary making such claims. Try to look past the partisan part of your ass to see the entire picture sometime.:rolleyes:

That would require looking at the Constitution and questioning Bush...

That would require looking at the Constitution and questioning Bush...And being a Republican means never questioning your leadership--if recent history is any indication, that is.

And being a Republican means never questioning your leadership--if recent history is any indication, that is.

Ignorance Is Strength!

That man Orwell had it all planned out right...

Typical liberal fear-mongering.

i think you'll find that i make for a piss-poor liberal. welcome to the world beyond silly dualistic political divisions.

Typical conservative ignorance.
I thought yuo were a Brit.

I thought yuo were a Brit.

Indeed. Thus why I did not add a Capital to 'conservatives'. Or is that the other way around?

Reagrdless, my point remains.

Right--because you'd be fine with all this if it were President Hillary making such claims. Try to look past the partisan part of your ass to see the entire picture sometime.:rolleyes:

i have increasingly come to the conclusion that the core members of the bush movement are actually physically unable to connect ideas into coherent wholes on their own and literally cannot veiw the world but through the lens of defending the leader and the movement. it explains a wide range of their behavior that just seems loony to those of us on the outside.

i think you'll find that i make for a piss-poor liberal. welcome to the world beyond silly dualistic political divisions.
i assume you're refferring to the world outside America's Perimeter. You're welcome to it, wherever you're from.

I thought yuo were a Brit.
Does it matter? Or does the world not exist outside the US?

i think you'll find that i make for a piss-poor liberal. welcome to the world beyond silly dualistic political divisions.

You should become one of us. You get a free 'We hate freedom & the USA' Bumper Sticker, and the to-secret pamphlet that details how we're going to let all those icky gay and minority people have all their rights, thereby going against the word of God.

Does it matter? Or does the world not exist outside the US?

Welcome to Britain: America's largest non-nuclear Aircraft Carrier. Also known as the '51st State'. Britain is of course the edge of the world; nothing else exists beyond it.

i assume you're refferring to the world outside America's Perimeter. You're welcome to it, wherever you're from.

And we'll take it. When the US becomes a theocratic dictatorship, we'll be free, running amok, destroying your precious conservative, religious morals.

i have increasingly come to the conclusion that the core members of the bush movement are actually physically unable to connect ideas into coherent wholes on their own and literally cannot veiw the world but through the lens of defending the leader and the movement. it explains a wide range of their behavior that just seems loony to those of us on the outside.

They've become so connected with Bush that they've actually assumed his intelligence levels...

i assume you're refferring to the world outside America's Perimeter. You're welcome to it, wherever you're from.

I'm in the United States. I'm not a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate.

I'm an internationalistic secularist non-utopian libertarian socialist.

Does it matter? Or does the world not exist outside the US?
What do i care about the world outside America's borders - if they aren't sponging off us for handouts, they're either trying kill us outright, whining over trade disputes, or stealing American jobs - whether by illegally entering the country or enticing aAmerican companies to relocate.

They're all against us - they're all against the American man - so why should I care whether it exists or not? Hmmm?

What do i care about the world outside America's borders - if they aren't sponging off us for handouts, they're either trying kill us outright, whining over trade disputes, or stealing American jobs - whether by illegally entering the country or enticing aAmerican companies to relocate.

They're all against us - they're all against the American man - so why should I care whether it exists or not? Hmmm?

Holy crap, you're the real thing, aren't you? Rants against 'Liberals', belief that the world is 'Sponging of of you', including immigrants I asume (Even though without them your country would collapse), belief that America is the best country in the world.

Tell me, do you own a gun and hate 'Dem fags'?

I'm an internationalistic secularist non-utopian libertarian socialist.
I'd hate being something I'd have to spellcheck. :D

What do i care about the world outside America's borders - if they aren't sponging off us for handouts, they're either trying kill us outright, whining over trade disputes, or stealing American jobs - whether by illegally entering the country or enticing aAmerican companies to relocate.

They're all against us - they're all against the American man - so why should I care whether it exists or not? Hmmm?

Because our economy is dependent on them. And very severely so.

I'd hate being something I'd have to spellcheck. :D

I'll translate: He is not a God-fearing, Bush-loving, America is the best, flag-waving mindless patriot.

Because our economy is dependent on them. And very severely so.

But...but...

"They took ah jerbs!"

But...but...

"They took ah jerbs!"
That's just not funny if it's happened to you. But I guess it's funny to get in your digs on the top dog if your country is past it's prime... but only funny for you.

That's just not funny if it's happened to you. But I guess it's funny to get in your digs on the top dog if your country is past it's prime... but only funny for you.

Please. You think illegal immigrants just take your jobs? That they look out to steal an honest Americans job? Utter tosh. Imigrants, illegal or legal, do some of the hardest, most difficult and lowest paying jobs that the average American or Westerner wouldn't even dream of doing.

That's just not funny if it's happened to you. But I guess it's funny to get in your digs on the top dog if your country is past it's prime... but only funny for you.

It's horrible, but that's how capitalism works. I don't support it; if you oppose workers being forced to compete with one another for the privilege of being exploited by capital, you shouldn't support it either.

As it is, supporting the attempts of immigrant workers to seek better lives is the only decent stance to take.

Hah! That's excellent. Bush can ignore a law if it's unconstitutional. Who decides if it's unconstitutional or not? Bush does!In the words of a tv show I saw: "First you say what happened,then I saw what happened , then I decide who's right. That's why we call it "Justice" because it's just us!"

I'd hate being something I'd have to spellcheck. :D

It's not a problem for those of us who can spell.

It's not a problem for those of us who can spell.
Spelling isn't a problem for those of us who can afford the right software.:rolleyes:

Spelling isn't a problem for those of us who can afford the right software.:rolleyes:

You pay for software? :rolleyes:

Spelling isn't a problem for those of us who can afford the right software.:rolleyes:
Better to be smart enough not to have to depend on software.