Bush presidential power unprecedented

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=79532409b5ed5732

Over the past five years, Savage reported, President George Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws that have been enacted by the United States Congress since he took office. At the heart of Bush's strategy is the claim that the president has the power to set aside any statute that conflicts with his own interpretation of the constitution.

Remarkably, this systematic reach for power has occurred not in secret but in public. Go to the White House website and the evidence is there in black and white. It takes the form of dozens of documents in which Bush asserts that his power as the nation's commander in chief entitles him to overrule or ignore bills sent to him by Congress for his signature. Behind this claim is a doctrine of the "unitary executive", which argues that the president's oath of office endows him with an independent authority to decide what a law means.
snip...
After the legislators leave, however, Bush puts his signature to another document. Known as a signing statement, this document is a presidential pronouncement setting out the terms in which he intends to interpret the new law. These signing statements often conflict with the new statutes. In some cases they even contradict their clear meaning. Increasing numbers of scholars and critics now believe they amount to a systematic power grab within a system that rests on checks and balances of which generations of Americans have been rightly proud - and of which others are justly envious.

The Bush administration has often been charged with unilateralism in its conduct of foreign affairs. But a similar disregard for the rule of law underlies this domestic strategy. Article 1, section 1 of the US constitution states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Section 7 says that if the president refuses to sign a law, the Congress can override him. But Bush has never vetoed a bill. Instead he signs bills into law and then unilaterally redefines them his way.
more...
Wake up America the Dictatorship is here now and in action... I seriously doubt Bush will relinguish power... the time will tell...I really see a Civil War in America where states will secede... I hope not but Bush is very desperate...

[Poppyseedman]

1. Anybody with a decent knowledge of Presidents know that

bush's presidential power grab is not unprecedented and can be restrained. The three branches of the government are constantly moving the center of balance between the three legs of our government

What is disturbing is his lack of using the veto power vested to him as a tool to make Congress work out the will of the people.

I seriously doubt this is a ploy to install himself as dictator, it's more of his lack of trust in the Congress to ultimately do the will of the people, which is condescending at least.

[Webster Green]

2. Are you serious?

This is totally unprecedented. We are facing a serious constitutional crisis.

The U. S. Supreme W. Court just set us back 500 years with the ruling allowing cops to bust in without announcing themselves.

[Poppyseedman]

4. No, we aren't facing a serious constitutional crisis

At least not yet.

Bush is definitely abusing his signing statement authority, but it has a long precedent.

Congress has no belly for benchmarking constitutionally defined powers as it ultimately will be decided by the SCOTUS, which traditional will take more power for themselves, so Congress will let Bush abuse his power to a certain extent.

He will be gone in Jan. 2009.

Congress knows there is way too much at stake to make a big deal of it since the outcome is unknown and they certainly would lose power in some form or function if a "constitutional crisis" is decided by someone other themselves.

[Tsiyu]

3. After what Alito and Roberts did this week

and, btw, Alito and Roberts, if you're reading this, you are scum-sucking pigs of the absolute highest order. You are systematically destroying the greatest document man ever created and you and your children will be loathed and reviled for generations to come. You will be remembered as Hitler was remembered. I hope it is all worth it. I curse you both along with the other three who back the Nazis in the White House.

:rant:


Now, then, after seeing what the Supremes are doing, I see that civil war is inevitable. This forced incompetence and disregard for what makes America great can continue no further.

Americans are angry, seething, really. The media try to portray the anger as a Democratic thing, which really only makes matters worse for them.

Americans know their anger is not partisan. It does not have an agenda. It is the white-hot anger of people tired of working for less than nothing, tired of war, tired of their rights being stripped away.

This is what the Neocons want, but I don't think they realize they will lose. Nearly the whole world will help the liberal in America. Very few of the earth's peoples will join in solidarity to help ** and his minions.

Think about it.

They are trying to force Americans to battle with Americans. Problem is, one side is way bigger than the other. It's another fantasy they have, and I know in the future all of their hopes will be dashed as long as they keep pushing their bloody, gluttonous agenda.

Our kids are watching. They have seen how Alito places no value on human life, how ** mocks their parents and the Laws of the Land, how corrupt Republicans continue to make their parents' lives miserable.

Our kids are watching, silently taking it all in.

"Don't have to follow laws if you don't want to. Check.

Don't have to have any regard for another's life. Check.

The ends always justify the means, so it's okay to murder, lie, steal and cheat. Check."

God help the Neocon when our babies have finally had enough. There is no weapon or army powerful enough to contain what our children will do for this country, knowing that they don't have to follow any rules, either.




Sad. Disgusting.

But that's reality.

[chill_wind]

5. John Dean: Bush arguably already contrary to SC precedent & Constitution

The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush's Use of Signing Statements

Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.


Impact Of Presidential Signing Statements

(..)
If Republican lose control of either the House or Senate - and perhaps even if they don't, if the subject is torture or an egregious violation of civil liberties -- then the Bush/Cheney administration will wish it had not issued all those signing statements
(...)

much more-
full article: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

I'd love to believe he's right in his not-so-veiled implications in this last passage.
(bold-face mine)