Is President Bush above the Law?

Is President Bush above the Law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Nosathro -> Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 9:41:34 AM)
According to an article in the New York Times by Carl Hulse The Government Accountability Office states that the Whitehouse used what is called "signing statements" to ignore laws. The White House does not deny it, main reason for this to fight terrorists. The use of "signing statements" dates back to President Andrew Jackson, but The Accountability Office noted Bush is the most frequent user of this partice when he feels a law is wrong. Don't you wish you could do the same...?

heartofakajira -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 9:43:33 AM)
Bush is a jackass, along with the entire United States government. Plain and simple. lol Master's patience

philosophy -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 9:44:32 AM)
......seems to me to be a dangerous element to a political system. Such 'signing statements' may be perfectly ok, as long as the one doing the signing is wholly trustworthy. If they are not then it is an unacceptable license to break the law. Is GWB wholly trustworthy? BTW, is there any oversight of this system? [edited to insert a t]

seeksfemslave -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 10:18:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartofakajira Bush is a jackass, along with the entire United States government. Plain and simple. lol Master's patience Heart: I for one would appreciate it if you would try not to beat around the bush quite so much when you make your next post.OK?

heartofakajira -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 11:02:01 AM)
seeksfemslave-- funny.....freedom of speech...ever heard of it? lol ...i am blunt and i do not bite my tongue on anything. Have a great day[:D]

farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 11:24:56 AM)
If my reply is: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!", would you get the irony?

heartofakajira -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 11:31:09 AM)
Perhaps...[:D]

Sinergy -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 12:17:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......seems to me to be a dangerous element to a political system. Such 'signing statements' may be perfectly ok, as long as the one doing the signing is wholly trustworthy. If they are not then it is an unacceptable license to break the law. Is GWB wholly trustworthy? BTW, is there any oversight of this system? [edited to insert a t] Their constitutionality has not been challenged, philosophy. It would have been if Clinton had used them, and the practice would have been amended to ever prevent them from being used. The reason for this is that the Constitution instituted "separation of powers," where the Legislative branch enacts laws, the Executive branch implements laws, and the Judiciary branch interprets laws. What these signing statements are, in essence, is an attempt by the Executive branch to interpret a law, which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. But with Congress as AnencephalyBoy's bitch, and all the non-Bushies getting fired, the odds it will be challenged under his watch is nil. Sinergy

farglebargle -> Bush tells Black Musicians to "Make sure you pickup all the trash after (the picnic) is over" (6/20/2007 12:23:31 PM)
Didn't Don Anus lose his job for this shit? quote: President and Mrs. Bush Host Congressional Picnic South Lawn Play Video Video (Windows) RSS Feed Presidential Remarks Play Audio Audio 8:10 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: ... Kermit, come up here. Kermit, we're proud to have you. MR. RUFFINS: Well, thanks for having us. THE PRESIDENT: Kermit Ruffins and the Barbeque Swingers, right out of New Orleans, Louisiana. (Applause.) MR. RUFFINS: Thank you. Thanks for having us. We're glad to be here. THE PRESIDENT: Proud you're here. Thanks for coming. You all enjoy yourself. Make sure you pick up all the trash after it's over. (Laughter.) God bless you, and may God bless America. Thanks for coming. (Applause.) END 8:12 P.M. EDT

Satyr6406 -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 12:35:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Their constitutionality has not been challenged, philosophy. It would have been if Clinton had used them, and the practice would have been amended to ever prevent them from being used. The reason for this is that the Constitution instituted "separation of powers," where the Legislative branch enacts laws, the Executive branch implements laws, and the Judiciary branch interprets laws. What these signing statements are, in essence, is an attempt by the Executive branch to interpret a law, which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. But with Congress as AnencephalyBoy's bitch, and all the non-Bushies getting fired, the odds it will be challenged under his watch is nil. Sinergy I don't know. "Executive Orders" have been around for a while and they were a favorite of FDR (as well as Johnson and Nixon) and no one ever griped about them. Sounds like this "signing whatevers" are the same shit; just a different wind direction. Peace and comfort, Michael

dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 1:47:39 PM)
You ask; ....Is Bush above the law.......Hell yes ! Not only above the law, he IS the Law. Nixon said it..."If the president does it, then it is not illegal." Bush the son, is the pawn of the father; and you are living under a dictatorship. Bush, the son, is a ursurper. He, is illegal. Remember, it wasn't over till his brother counted the votes. With all the complexities of the laws, interpetations, the consitutional dialog etc, etc.; it all boils down to the simple fact.....Bush is the Law, he IS above all Laws..... He stands with impunity; .nothing but nothing will be done for all the crimes, (please, don't start with, "name one crime he has committed" crap) and lies he has committed. And, after this term is over; no one will remember the doings of Bush, if a Dem get the Throne, they all, but all blame will be theirs. If Hillary acquires the throne, then for sure we will have utter choas, she and the Dems will carry the blame for EVERYTHING. Already, they are blaming the Dem congress for the woes that have beset us. Correct me, please, wasn't if a republican congress with Bush ? So why this post? I mean, what are you going to do about it anyway.

ManInTheBox -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 1:50:21 PM)
Of course the president is above the law. Look a Clinton, he becomes president and all of a sudden a BJ doesn't count as sex =/ It's no secret that Bush is an idiot though of course. The fact that out of the whole country the Democrats couldn't find someone to beat him last election is beyond belief

Stephann -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 2:39:59 PM)
Legally, the president is in fact 'above' the law, during his term. In fact, not only is the president immune, but he has the power to pardon. Here's a list of Bush's pardons. The only oversight is the capacity of the Senate to impeach him. Stephan

farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 2:45:34 PM)
Please cite the CONSTITUTIONAL SECTION AND ARTICLE which confers immunity from indictment by grand jury upon a sitting president.

dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 2:49:22 PM)
Hi; so, by your statements, the Clinton Bj was worse, more of a threat to the world.... than the Iraq war, driving this country into bankrupcy, WMDs, homeland security, a country under survellance, citizens rights lost, etc; and the like. I know, I know, the terrorists must be stopped; Don't mind that Bush's brother counted the Votes......Brother????? Pleeease. So, you really believe these elections are honest, straight? Bush is GOD, (the father) the son- is the pawn of the Father. You think, if a Dem gets the throne, whoever it may be, even Hillary, now that would be a hoopla, good for two terms of mind blowing , unrelenting, repubican nonsense;.... the Bush regin is over, guess again, this does not change anything from the on going, long term plan. Okay then......never mind.

uwinceismile -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 2:57:15 PM)
wow, damn near 7 yrs later,,and still decrying an election :(... btw, bushs brothers state counted the votes,and the folks who ran the state election were dems..and if u dont believe that the dems had every available eyeball watching the counting, then all i can say is,,,,have another glass of koolaid:).. no worries, he will be gone in a bit, then who ya gonna cry about?

dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 3:00:57 PM)
Hi Farglebargle; I really like reading your posts. Now, this impunity to the law, the President seems to have; Clinton did not, as you remember that insider trading thingie of 100 grand or so, which the republicans spent over 48 million of our bucks to prove, all in vain however. Bush, is above all laws, as the consequences of his uni-lateral actions have shown. The consitution has no effect on him, he stands without challenge on any issue, no matter how criminal it may be. No one challenges him on any account, not even the media, no one who would carry any weight challenges him. He stands with impunity of the laws which govern us all. The record is clear.......so, constitution or no......he is above the law. The question should be......why is this.

farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 4:17:56 PM)
Because he removed all the honorable US Attorneys who COULD bring a case against him to a Grand Jury with Loyal Bushies, whose loyalty is to The Party instead of their oath and honor. There's a reason Marine Corps Captain David Iglesias had to go. He has Honor. "A Few Good Men", Indeed!

satyrne07 -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 4:44:56 PM)
These signing statements are part 1 of a "brilliant" two part move, nobody's tried this one before: Here's how it works... The signing statements are different from "executive orders" ... they have been around for a long time but the Bush Administration, following on the advice of for White House counsel (now Attorney General) Gonzalez is trying to lay the groundwork for an end run around the Congress. For anyone who is unclear about that it means THEY ARE TRYING TO UNDERMINE Congressional authority by laying the groundwork for a sneaky 1-2 punch. This is some seriously clever and expensive conservative think tank stuff so here's how it's gonna work... Problem: Congress writes the laws and the President can only choose to sign or veto them. He can't control how they are written (Congress) or how they are interpreted (Supreme Court) ... this has been true always with or without signing statements. Dispicable Solution: If' a bill is a document that becomes a law when the president signs it, you can imagine it's like a contract, like buying a new car. In the past some presidents have added little comments (signing statements) for example, wishing that a law setting aside federal park land will ensure its enjoyment for all future Americans (*warm fuzzy)... sort of like writing on the pink slip of your new Mustang a note that says "no speeding tickets!" These statements really never mattered in any case because the are not part of the law (the contract) just a President's commentary (He could write: "when this screws up I told you so") So here's the ingenious twist... Signing statements don't matter because the Supreme Court has always agreed they don't matter when it comes to interpreting a law... The congressional record of debate counts, so does precedent, but the President is out of the loop. BUT IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT to establish a court that changes the rules and says "hey... let's just say the President's signing statement counts for interpretation" then the President is in a way getting the last word. After the bill is written, he signs it, then this group has said it's okay for him to just note which parts he wants to enforce and which he doesn't. How would you like the power to sign a contract then write a note on the bottom saying which parts you plan to honor, knowing that in a few years a judge reading the contract might just say, "well says here at the bottom that you agreed to make your car payments only in leap years". The primary aim is to make the President stronger than Congress in a way that ensures whatever party controls the election of the President has an overwhelming advantage. So what? Well, it's a lot easier to concentrate money and influence on winning one race than on winning 535 House and Senate races (as the Republicans just discovered)... A tilt of the Supreme Court in the direction of more Executive Power on this issue would change this country fundamentally. Whatever your politics, it would mean power fundamentally shifts to Washington in a way you've never seen it.

luckydog1 -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/20/2007 5:37:24 PM)
Actually Sinergy, Clinton issued 140 of them. But it was a nice (though utterly baseless) rant, you layed down.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875