Boston Globe: "Bush bypasses hundreds of laws"

Mercutio · 30th April 2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

BPSCG · 30th April 2006, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

On today's front page.

Sounds like a tactic to replace impoundment.

Mercutio · 30th April 2006, 07:30 AM

I forget, what was the tactic Quayle used under Bush I?

shemp · 30th April 2006, 07:39 AM

This is an example of why, when I pick up my Sunday Globe (yes, they actually do still print these things on paper!) I go staight to the sports section (the Sox finally got the bats going last night). I can't handle this kind of stuff until at least 2 p.m.

Mark · 30th April 2006, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

This is an example of why, when I pick up my Sunday Globe (yes, they actually do still print these things on paper!) I go staight to the sports section (the Sox finally got the bats going last night). I can't handle this kind of stuff until at least 2 p.m.

Doesn't bother me that much...when a rattlesnake bites someone it is just doing what rattlesnakes do. No surprise there.

What frustrates me is the number of people who will still support this man no matter what he does. It's scary.

Random · 30th April 2006, 07:57 AM

These signing statements are a whole lot easier than vetos. Why spend all that time negotiating with Congress when you can simply let Congress do whatever they want, then ignore them?

webfusion · 30th April 2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

These signing statements are a whole lot easier than vetos. Why spend all that time negotiating with Congress when you can simply let Congress do whatever they want, then ignore them?

Like a lot of marriages.

BPSCG · 30th April 2006, 08:34 AM

The obvious question: If someone thinks it's unconstitutional, why isn't the issue in the courts?

Random · 30th April 2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

The obvious question: If someone thinks it's unconstitutional, why isn't the issue in the courts?

A couple of reasons:

1) Who's going to take him to court? The House and Senate are in GOP hands until the November election, most of these signing statements are issued in regards to National Security issues where we don't know who is getting affected, and as upset as liberals may be about all this nosense, we might not have any standing.

2) The signing statements are meaningless, only the actions of Bush matter. If Bush writes a letter saying he can break the law, and he breaks the law, then we would go after him for breaking the law, not writing the letter. He can write as many letters as he wants. He can write a letter declaring that he lives in a nutshell and is the king of infinite space. Nothing illegal there. If he attempts to use the letter to defend his actions, then we can explain that it is worthless.

3) Because it's just too stupid. These signing statements have no legal authority under the Constitution. It's like a budget request for "a hundred bazillion dollars", or if Bush started signing all his bills into law as "John Doe". Bush signed a meaningless piece of paper, let's take him to court! How do you punish someone for signing a meaningless piece of paper?

gnome · 30th April 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

Doesn't bother me that much...when a rattlesnake bites someone it is just doing what rattlesnakes do. No surprise there.

What frustrates me is the number of people who will still support this man no matter what he does. It's scary.

Because the lower he sinks, the lower they drop their expectations of his Democrat rivals?

Mark · 30th April 2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

Because the lower he sinks, the lower they drop their expectations of his Democrat rivals?

Well, yeah. No matter how badly he screws up, no matter how corrupt the Republican rule becomes, no matter how much they hate what happens...they will always hate the Democrats more.

Tony · 30th April 2006, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mark

Well, yeah. No matter how badly he screws up, no matter how corrupt the Republican rule becomes, no matter how much they hate what happens...they will always hate the Democrats more.

They sound like typical fundies.

Mark · 30th April 2006, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tony

They sound like typical fundies.

Well, they are allies.

30th April 2006, 07:19 AM	#1
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	Boston Globe: "Bush bypasses hundreds of laws" On today's front page. Quote: Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

30th April 2006, 07:24 AM	#2
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Mercutio On today's front page. Sounds like a tactic to replace impoundment.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

30th April 2006, 07:30 AM	#3
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	I forget, what was the tactic Quayle used under Bush I?
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

30th April 2006, 07:39 AM	#4
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,884	This is an example of why, when I pick up my Sunday Globe (yes, they actually do still print these things on paper!) I go staight to the sports section (the Sox finally got the bats going last night). I can't handle this kind of stuff until at least 2 p.m.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

30th April 2006, 07:55 AM	#5
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by shemp This is an example of why, when I pick up my Sunday Globe (yes, they actually do still print these things on paper!) I go staight to the sports section (the Sox finally got the bats going last night). I can't handle this kind of stuff until at least 2 p.m. Doesn't bother me that much...when a rattlesnake bites someone it is just doing what rattlesnakes do. No surprise there. What frustrates me is the number of people who will still support this man no matter what he does. It's scary.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre Last edited by Mark; 30th April 2006 at 07:57 AM.

30th April 2006, 07:57 AM	#6
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,457	These signing statements are a whole lot easier than vetos. Why spend all that time negotiating with Congress when you can simply let Congress do whatever they want, then ignore them?
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

30th April 2006, 08:22 AM	#7
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: These signing statements are a whole lot easier than vetos. Why spend all that time negotiating with Congress when you can simply let Congress do whatever they want, then ignore them? Like a lot of marriages.

30th April 2006, 08:34 AM	#8
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	The obvious question: If someone thinks it's unconstitutional, why isn't the issue in the courts?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

30th April 2006, 08:55 AM	#9
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,457	Originally Posted by BPSCG The obvious question: If someone thinks it's unconstitutional, why isn't the issue in the courts? A couple of reasons: 1) Who's going to take him to court? The House and Senate are in GOP hands until the November election, most of these signing statements are issued in regards to National Security issues where we don't know who is getting affected, and as upset as liberals may be about all this nosense, we might not have any standing. 2) The signing statements are meaningless, only the actions of Bush matter. If Bush writes a letter saying he can break the law, and he breaks the law, then we would go after him for breaking the law, not writing the letter. He can write as many letters as he wants. He can write a letter declaring that he lives in a nutshell and is the king of infinite space. Nothing illegal there. If he attempts to use the letter to defend his actions, then we can explain that it is worthless. 3) Because it's just too stupid. These signing statements have no legal authority under the Constitution. It's like a budget request for "a hundred bazillion dollars", or if Bush started signing all his bills into law as "John Doe". Bush signed a meaningless piece of paper, let's take him to court! How do you punish someone for signing a meaningless piece of paper?
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

30th April 2006, 09:29 AM	#10
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Originally Posted by Mark Doesn't bother me that much...when a rattlesnake bites someone it is just doing what rattlesnakes do. No surprise there. What frustrates me is the number of people who will still support this man no matter what he does. It's scary. Because the lower he sinks, the lower they drop their expectations of his Democrat rivals?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

30th April 2006, 06:05 PM	#11
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by gnome Because the lower he sinks, the lower they drop their expectations of his Democrat rivals? Well, yeah. No matter how badly he screws up, no matter how corrupt the Republican rule becomes, no matter how much they hate what happens...they will always hate the Democrats more.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

30th April 2006, 09:53 PM	#12
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,753	Originally Posted by Mark Well, yeah. No matter how badly he screws up, no matter how corrupt the Republican rule becomes, no matter how much they hate what happens...they will always hate the Democrats more. They sound like typical fundies.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

30th April 2006, 10:58 PM	#13
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by Tony They sound like typical fundies. Well, they are allies.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre