Elections..what elections..BWWWHHHAAAA
Posted on 04/30/2006 7:51:42 PM PDT by ritewingwarrior
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. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Perhaps...just perhaps, he's finally getting a pair, eh?
Boy, no BIAS here from the Boston Fishwrap..er...sorry...the Boston Retractor...
sounds like congress is overstepping THEIR authority and Bush is just evening the field
Everyone makes mistakes, but GW truely loves this country. I think our founding fathers would have been proud of him and how strongly he strives to defend the country. Its funny but the DUmmies posted this as a way to ridicule him.
----
I totally disagee as do MANY. Bush loves his agenda of the New World Order and he does NOT work to defend this country but to pursue an agenda that turns this country into a cesspool of destroyed soverignty. Our founding fathers would be embaressed at his total anti-agenda against American soverignty in favor of an elitist, utopian NEW WORLD ORDER destruction of borders to make ONE AMERICA. Sound crazy? Not at all -- just open your eyes. Show me ONE MATERIAL SUBSTANTIVE thing this president has done to do otherwise. -- GOTHCHA.
"But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override."
How soon they forget Clinton and Filegate, where he had the FBI spying on 1000s of his opponents. I have yet to hear of one person who was tapped by the NSA that didn't deserve it. Hypocrits.
The Fax must have gone out to "journalists" last week....here's the SEATTLE Times article courtesy of the Chicago paper....
"Cheney won't tell how much he keeps secret"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002962226_cheney30.html
Elections..what elections..BWWWHHHAAAA
Signing an unconstitutional law and expressing "reservations" about it rather than vetoing it can hardly be described as "getting a pair." Let him veto an unconstitutional bill before you say that.
You really have a lot of time on your hands nights when SAVAGE!Weiner isn't on telling you what to think.
I dunno, offhand, tax cuts, SCOTUS picks, WOT seem like pretty MATERIAL SUBSTANTIVE things to me.
"Cheney won't tell how much he keeps secret"
LOL! Well, duh!
Then I guess it wouldn't be a secret anymore.
So you would rather have our country isolate themselves from the rest of the world? Sorry but I support opening markets to other countries and increasing our influence around the world. America produces products and services that developing nations need to grow. Times are not perfect but it is a growing process.
I wonder if the globe described Clinton's executive orders as "disobeying the law".
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.
''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."
Whoda thunk a Harvard guy would get it right?
What a peculiar statement. I guess sentences don't all have to mean something.
This is from the boston globe.
That makes 100% of all they write wrong until proven corrent and even then it has to be a non MSM source.
I think they missed that story.
Well isn't that special...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.