Posted on 10/16/2008 10:26:39 AM PDT by BGHater
President Bush asserted on Tuesday that he had the executive power to bypass several parts of two bills: a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control.
Mr. Bush signed the two measures into law. But he then issued a so-called signing statement in which he instructed the executive branch to view parts of each as unconstitutional constraints on presidential power.
In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.
The sections “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations,” including as commander in chief, Mr. Bush wrote.
In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.
One section gives the inspectors general a right to counsels who report directly to them. But Mr. Bush wrote in his signing statement that such lawyers would be bound to follow the legal interpretations of the politically appointed counsels at each agency.
The other section requires the White House to tell Congress what each inspector general said about the administration’s budget proposal for their offices. Such a requirement, Mr. Bush wrote, would infringe on “the president’s constitutional authority” to decide what to recommend to Congress.
Mr.Bush will not submit another budget request before his administration ends in January, so his objections are unlikely to face a test on his watch. Still, the bill’s sponsor, Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, said he hoped that the next president would overturn Mr.Bush’s signing statements.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Wow! Eight years into his Presidency he discovers the line item veto!
Isn’t this neutralizing part of Duncan Hunter’s bill?
Then why sign the bills in the first place George?
Is this like McCain-Feingold when he said [paraphrasing, of course] 'I know it's unconstitutional, but I'll sign it anyway and let the courts figure it out.'?
I’m pretty sure I read in National Review a while ago, that he’s been doing this the whole time.
I think this is the referenced bill in this article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2106277/posts
The ‘Hunter’ defense bill
Of course it is. Just like Bush ignored building the fence.
Figured that an anti-American Liberal Globalist/Business Socialist like Boosh would try to scuttle any legislation sponsored by a great American like Duncan Hunter.
President Bush has been attaching signing statements all along to preserve the powers given to the executive branch. Nothing to get concerned about,imo.
Ok. bump
Because President Bush does not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What powers would those be, specifically?
The bill wasn’t sponsored by Duncan. It was put out by a Dem, a long-time co-worker with Hunter - and he just named it after Duncan. Duncan felt very honored.
After eight years, I must say that I would of rather had Gore than this bozo.
Your relationship to reality is as tenuous as your relationship to English grammar.
It must be so pleasant to be as wise, informed and educated as you must be.
Would you like for me to work on you plantation, being as uneducated as I must be...
I have no idea in this case. You do realize that most bills contain a constant struggle for power in Washington, congress is always attempting to usurp power away from the executive branch. The Bush administration obviously think some provisions of the bill are congressional power grabs. You would have to ask them.
I know you'd have loved the way algore handled the War on Terror...
</heaps of steaming sarcasm>
I don't consider myself to be anything other than adequately informed and educated.
Would you like for me to work on you plantation, being as uneducated as I must be...
While I don't own a plantation, I would guess that someone who actually did own plantations would be happy to hire someone who pines for a Gore presidency. That is likely the exact mentality that a plantation overseer would be looking for in an employee.
Duncan Hunter likely did not insert that section for the US to control Iraqi oil. Sounds like democrats. It isn’t “Hunter’s bill”, they named it for him because he is retiring. He’s had to compromise with the Dems on the HASC, especially since they are in control these last two years. Generally speaking, I’ve supported Bush’s signing statements over the years. I’d have to see the actual details on this one to judge it.
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.