briefly

[solarbird]

Please never refer to the modern Republican party as the Party of the Rule of Law again. You may add this to the list that includes "Party of Fiscal Discipline," "Party of Small Government," and "Party of Responsibility." Thanks.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

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.

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

Umm Congress can not make any law that impinges on the power of the Presidency. You need an amendment for that.

And BTW, I refer to them as 'The Stupid Party', or 'The ball-less party'.

[solarbird]

Congress can not make any law that impinges on the power of the Presidency. You need an amendment for that.
His supposed idea of what that means is indefensible. Congress letting him get away with it is also indefensible. He's accumulating powers in ways the anti-Federalists warned about over 200 years ago, and apparently that just seems to be fine.

I refer to them as 'The Stupid Party'
The stupid party? I think we're 2 for 2 on that one.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I would hardly call his behavior indefensible. Remember all the laws Clinton created? "Stroke of the Pen, Law of the Land! Kinda Cool" Remember that quote? Clinton wrote what? Ten Thousand executive orders? And Congress over turned how many? 1? 2?

I don't think Bush is in danger of ever coming close to the abuses of office that Clinton gave us.

[solarbird]

He's saying Congress can't. Moreover, he's saying that Congressional laws don't apply to him if he doesn't think they do. He's saying that his signing statement carries the full weight of Congressionally-passed law. This is not the same. This is even worse.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Just curious - what does Clinton have to do with any of this except to bring him up yet again any time something critical is said of Bush?

It's not like saying "Bill Clinton did this" makes what Bush is doing all right. It's sad so many people out there actually believe that.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Just saying that this is nothing new. Not at all.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Question - did you read the article?

[banner.livejournal.com]

As soon as they started to go on about how his wiretapping program was 'domestic spying' and 'illegal' I stopped. Cause that's pretty much bullshit. And as I've stated elsewhere, when the Clinton administration tapped my phones and followed me around and took pictures of me (in short engaged in domestic spying on me, with NO foreign attachment, during peacetime) no one gave a damn.

So if something far more excessive was okay under Clinton, than taping phone calls from foreign terrorists during a war, which is allowed, is okay with me.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

In other words, no - you didn't read it all.

So you probably didn't get to the part about how George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, or an average of 58 a year. Bill Clinton challenged 140 over eight years, or 17.5 a year. George W. Bush has, so far, challenged more than 750 over five years, or at least 150 a year. The others would veto some bills. He is not. He is the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay in office so long without giving a single veto.

This is about a lot more than wiretapping. If that's your excuse to gloss over the rest of the article because you were inconvenienced by Clinton, that's up to you.

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

Now wait a minute. I disagree with banner's politics generally as much as you do, but that doesn't justify downgrading his being spied on to "inconvenienced." If anyone else had reported the same behavior from Bush, you'd be outraged.

Cathy

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

I might be, but then again I don't know what reason anyone would've had to spy on somebody.

Before you attempt to speak for me, think about that.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Something else worth thinking about...

In regards to the spying and wiretapping, I've seen numerous conservatives/Bush supporters/etc. take the basic position of "What does it matter to you if you're not doing anything suspicious? Unless you're breaking the law or talking to terrorists, what are you so concerned about hiding?"

Let's not even touch the invasion of privacy issues there...

Why do I bring this up? I don't know if Banner is one of Those People or not, but if he DOES abide by that logic or some form of it, doesn't complaining about being spied on himself suggest or at least bring up the possibility of a double standard or some level of hypocrisy? After all, what did he have to hide, if he wasn't doing anything wrong?

Just a thought. I have general issues with our government spying on Americans without a DAMN good reason as it is.

[banner.livejournal.com]

As soon as an article starts in on the BS I get skeptical. Once it gets hip deep I stop reading. If the rest of the article was factual and news worthy (which I sincerely doubt, I'd bet money it was all bullshit) they wouldn't have started off with the NSA wiretapping program which is 100 percent legal.

As for saying 'well he challenged more than anyone else' means he's bad is illogical at best. It could be very well that the people passing the laws are just passing more bad ones now than ever before. And don't forget, there is a war on. During war time liberties do tend to suffer until it's over.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess you won't know how much of it is bullshit and how much isn't if you can't even be bothered to see for yourself.

Oh well.

[avram]

when the Clinton administration tapped my phones and followed me around and took pictures of me

What exactly are you talking about?

[banner.livejournal.com]

Several friends of mine, and myself, formed a militia to protest Clinton's stance on gun control. It was meant more as a joke than anything else. We also used to picket Clinton administration member appearances.

One day we found we were being followed by people with camera's and telephoto lenses. So we confronted them. BATF, they were spying on use, following us, taking pictures of us. My phone was tapped, and I lost my Secret clearance so I couldn't work in DOD anymore.

We never broke a law, we even disbanded the day of Oklahoma city because it was just an 'in your face Bill Clinton' action more than anything else. I think we picketed all of 5 times, we existed for less than a year.

So everytime I hear anyone whining about evil George Bush my whole opinion is to go cry on someone else's sleeve, cause you're all full of it. I have yet to see any law abiding people lose thier careers over protesting Bush. But I know several who lost their's for protesting Clinton. And yes, they even sent the IRS after me.

This is one of the reasons I don't protest anymore. Well at least not liberals.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

The article does get one thing wrong. The law regarding wiretapping which was ignored does not make it legal to wiretap US citizens. That has long been legal through the regular courts. Rather, this particular law (Passed in the late Seventies IIRC.) allows an alternate, non-public route for quickly obtaining wiretap warrants in secret, where matters of national security are at stake.

In other words, there was a procedure in place which would have allowed Boosh to do exactly what he wanted, but legally. And he ignored it.