lilie Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 http://www.unknownnews.org/061018-Abovethelaw.html somebody? anybody? clear this up? define it for me lilie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 You haven't asked a question. I can see a dozen or more topics for discussion. What on that page do you not understand? a.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I think she is probably commenting on the main article on the page AM. Bush's says he'll ignore two dozen provisions of new defense law by William Matthews, Air Force Times Oct. 18, 2006 Congress said it wants next year's defense budget to include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Bush has indicated he may ignore that request. In a "signing statement" released when he signed the 2007 Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 17, the president listed two dozen provisions in the act that he indicated he may or may not abide by.To read the complete article please go to: http://www.unknownnews.org/061018-Abovethelaw.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilie Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 yes Maddy I was. How is this possible to ignore provisions of such a law? lilie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libby Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Bush has written many, many "signing statements," refusing to acknowledge parts of legislation, more than any other president. In fact, I think I read that it was more than all other presidents combined. How does he get away with all of it? Republican Majority in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panz Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Bush believes he is the divine word of God, that he is the saviour...doesn't that mean that he is a schizophreniac??? Its pretty common to imagine that one is Jesus, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I do not believe that it is legal for the Prez to deliberately refuse to carry out the law. Now, you have to give W. credit. He is being upfront, honest and putting in writing his intentions and the reasons why. The traditional way to deal with bothersome congressional mandates would be to put a low level beaurocrat in a broom closet in the basement and wait two years until the night before budget expires to issue a lame report that fullfils the requirement in title only. Congress must not think this is important. I haven't seen any congressman on the evening news railing against this. No congressman has filed suit against the executive and taken the case to the Supreme Court for final interpretation. Neither has congress as a whole taken any action to rebuke the president. They haven't issued a Sense of Congress, nor a Resolution, nor any additional laws mandating the President to act. As long as congress fails to call the president on the matter nothing will change. a.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The traditional way would be to veto it until he gets something he'll sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loon-A-TiK Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 why does this happen? who is responsible for making sure it doesn't? wha? we elect dumbasses. they won't even stand up for their own ideas. do they want the president to just be the scapegoat for everything anyway, because he's on his way out and they have their careers to maintain? so, do they bring up things they know would normally get vetoed, only to have him just ignore provisions? that's my theory. take it as you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Reagan , George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements among them. As of October 4, 2006, W had signed 134 signing statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The signing statements are basically saying it doesn't count because he had his fingers crossed. Enforcing the law is the job of the executive branch. I'm not sure there are options other than impeachment and turning a blind eye, and the vast majority of people don't want impeachment still. Well. There's revolution but if people aren't even behind impeachment that's not going to work either. On the bright side, Bush has set the precedent for much stronger executive power to be yielded by say, president Dean. Somebody is going to need it to fix this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natsky Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Hey Elvis, Do you think Dean will run again?? I'd help in any way I could with that campaign. I lvoe him to pieces and think he'd do a fine job as President. Do you think he would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I hope so as well. Since he was the one behind the fifty state stratagy that got us this far in the house and senate he's in good standing with the party, Hillary's wing of the DLC nonwithstanding. I don't care what it does to the country. If Hillary is the candidate I'm voting Green again. Now if the media can just stop playing that damn yell clip and making him look crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.