Zilam
22-08-2008, 16:37
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=ht...gning.pdf&images=yes (http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcongress%2F2008%2Fsigning.pdf&images=yes)
According to the findings, 78% of Bush's signing statements have had constitutional concerns attached to them, meaning they have raised issues on whether or not the statements were indeed in line with the Constitution. This is greatly higher than President Clinton, who had an 18% rate.
From the report:
The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week
“78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
“Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said.
From C&L
As the report makes clear, not all signing statements are bad. Sometimes they’re useful and entirely appropriate, and sometimes they’re used for naked power grabs that are nearly impossible to challenge. Well, it appears 78% of President Bush’s fall into the latter category.
That begs the obvious question: Which laws has Bush challenged?
1. A provision in the 2008 defense bill that would make it illegal to build permanent bases in Iraq(1). The White House is currently pushing for 58 bases (2).
2. A bill outlawing the use of torture on detainees.(3) McCain did a lot of grandstanding on the day this law “passed,” but he hasn’t said anything since about Bush’s refusal to abide it.(4)
3. A provision in the Patriot Act that requires the White House to inform Congress on how the FBI was using it’s new spying powers. This one naturally led to the FBI severely abusing their power.(5)
etc. etc.(6)
So, conservatives, how do you defend this outright grab of unconstitutional power? That's right you can't. It seems that your fav. president to bash, was indeed, officially, a more legal and better president than Dubya.
Now, my question is, since we let Bush do this, how bad will the next few presidents be? Will they be outright opportunists like Mr. Bush, or will we ever find someone who gives up power?
Sources for citations:
1) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/b..._bypass_defense_act/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/)
2) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/40372.html
3) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/b...ass_new_torture_ban/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/)
4) http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/
5) http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_repor.html
6) http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp
According to the findings, 78% of Bush's signing statements have had constitutional concerns attached to them, meaning they have raised issues on whether or not the statements were indeed in line with the Constitution. This is greatly higher than President Clinton, who had an 18% rate.
From the report:
The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week
“78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
“Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said.
From C&L
As the report makes clear, not all signing statements are bad. Sometimes they’re useful and entirely appropriate, and sometimes they’re used for naked power grabs that are nearly impossible to challenge. Well, it appears 78% of President Bush’s fall into the latter category.
That begs the obvious question: Which laws has Bush challenged?
1. A provision in the 2008 defense bill that would make it illegal to build permanent bases in Iraq(1). The White House is currently pushing for 58 bases (2).
2. A bill outlawing the use of torture on detainees.(3) McCain did a lot of grandstanding on the day this law “passed,” but he hasn’t said anything since about Bush’s refusal to abide it.(4)
3. A provision in the Patriot Act that requires the White House to inform Congress on how the FBI was using it’s new spying powers. This one naturally led to the FBI severely abusing their power.(5)
etc. etc.(6)
So, conservatives, how do you defend this outright grab of unconstitutional power? That's right you can't. It seems that your fav. president to bash, was indeed, officially, a more legal and better president than Dubya.
Now, my question is, since we let Bush do this, how bad will the next few presidents be? Will they be outright opportunists like Mr. Bush, or will we ever find someone who gives up power?
Sources for citations:
1) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/b..._bypass_defense_act/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/)
2) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/40372.html
3) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/b...ass_new_torture_ban/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/)
4) http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/
5) http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_repor.html
6) http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp