Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush defends 'signing statements'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 10:34 AM
Original message
Bush defends 'signing statements'

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=6921

Bush defends 'signing statements'


WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House today defended President Bush’s prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation’s security.

“There’s this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he’s not,” said Bush’s press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. “It’s important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.”

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush’s use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passsed by Congress — including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

...

A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush’s statements.

“Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress’ response to those events,” said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. “The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11.”

“Congress has been more active, the president has been more active,” she added. “The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.”



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thecrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. No the separartion of powers is NOT working
When we have a pResident who disregards the law andn basically says he can make these signing statements to do whatever he likes anyway. And saying 9-11 9-11 9-11 does NOT make it legal!

This is complete and utter bullshit!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Most of those staements say he'll ignore reporting to Congress on
results, etc. They are not legal. They're a fake line-item veto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Pretty much the whole purpose
of his signing statements are related to how nothing he signs would apply to the executive branch.

I'd love to see this become a talking point, but I don't think it really will. Shine too much light on the procedure and the public might get pissed off enough to demand it not be allowed ever again. Both parties have enjoyed it too much to push it that far, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Useless spin. -Why is he signing them if he has reservations?
Can't the US pres find anyone to answer his questions about the Constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. "Civil disobedience"....that's not what we're calling it
"civil disobedience" is what people like Rosa Parks did.

What Bush is doing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL, and just another reason why the Commander Codpiece should be IMPEACHED and THROWN OUT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
6. Alright, Michelle KnowAll Boardman. Then, can you, dear ...
Edited on Tue Jun-27-06 11:07 AM by Amonester
KnowAll (out of thin air) 'Master' dare 'enlighten' us all, taxpayers, and tell us What Are The Vetos For, hey??

Who R these overpaid ignorant nuts? (Bought and paid for?) :crazy: :argh:


Edit: I'm so mad I can't spell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
7. here are official du threads for the hearing held today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
8. so Tony Snow now speaks in front of Congress Comm. Whow--a press
secretary doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nellre Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. Bush making decisions about what is Constitutional
He's the decider after all.
We can now disband the Supreme Court.

Only this is the passage in the Constitution he uses to grab all that power:

" The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
10. so, the President not the judiciary determines Constitutionality
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. So Bush has constitutional "reservations" about the banning of torture
I see.

So Bush thinks it is unconstitutional to ban torture? That's what I'm hearing...

That he is upholding the Constitution by allowing torture

Nice.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Platypus Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
12. Sorry, but...
...that constitution Bush claims to revere does not grant the president the right to "express reservations about the constitutionality" of anything. Separation of powers places review for constitutionality in the judiciary, not the executive. Bush is not trying to reestablish the separation of powers or protect the constitution. He is trying to maintain the imperial presidency's position as the most activist of the three branches. Anybody who bitches about "activist judges" (who are just doing their job) should *really* hate an "activist executive" who arrogates to himself the responsibilities the constitution assigns to the legislature and judiciary. The dictionary term for such is tyrant or despot, not president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
13. Why don't the Dems offer up an anti-signing statement resolution?
It will get voted down by the Repubs, of course, but they'll be on record as declaring them unconstitutional because they violate the government separation of powers.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Bush* would just use a signing statement saying he didn't have to obey
Catch 22
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Orwellian doublespeak at its finest . . .
"they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation’s security" . . .

c'mon, now . . . even HE doesn't believe that! . . . sheesh . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. HAH! "bush" and "uphold the Constitution" in the same sentence.
Weirdest thing I've seen all day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. Defending the indefensible act of treason to the Constitution?
Impeach him now!

What separation of Powers?

What separation of Church and State?

What is the Constitution to this would-be dictator that merely uses it as an asswipe?

:nuke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reclinerhead Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. Are they permanent?
This will probably be a dumb question, but what happens to these signing statements when the democrats take over the presidency in 2008? Can they be shredded, like they deserve to be, or are they somehow a permanent part of each bill?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. The MSM should compare him to other presidents
His numbers are much higher and that SHOULD be suspect and cause for questioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. the quality (basis) and quantity are significant, but MSM won't mention
that FACT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. "a modest increase?" Twice as many as all other pres. combined?
Shrub may be many things, but modest is not one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
schmuls Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Civil disobedience and President Bush - two concepts not to be
placed in the same sentence!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC