This is all over the place, so I'm going to chime in a little here also.
During the signing of the patriot act extension, President Bush made the statement that he does not have to abide by the "legal requirement that he inform Congress about the FBI's use of expanded police powers."
When I talk about Bush being short-sighted and incompetent this is what I'm referring to. When he says and does stuff like this it sets precedent for future presidents to do the same. If you don't want Hillary to have the power to pick and choose what laws she will follow, then Bush can't do it either. Personally, I don't want any president (Democrat or Republican) to have the precedent to do such. Bush sure is setting us up for a dandy of a ride.
Following Bush's lead, given the inherit ability that American citizens may publicly declare which laws they desire to follow, I hereby officially declare that if George W. Bush does not have to abide by legal requirements of the patriot act, then neither do I. He's no better than me.
3.24.2006
Posted by Chris at 1:50 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Signing statements are common practice, at least according to the little bit I've read about them. My understanding is that they are designed to provide an interpretation of laws, (in this case, the Patriot Act) and don't necessarily have any significant legal weight to them. This is not to say that Bush has interpreted the level of executive power that the Constitution allows him to have correctly. I'm certainly not qualified to rule on that point, however, based on what you posted, I'm tempted to agree with you here.
I do think that there are many smart people out there, including myself, who don't totally understand the limits on power that the Constitution allows for each branch of government. I don't think that Bush was ever a lawyer or a judge, so I'm not sure how he would be an expert on that subject. I guess you could argue that he should have advisors who would explain this to him, and that's a fair point. I'm just not sure that this current statement by Dubya adds any new information to what we already know about him. It's a tricky question to answer-- how do we as a country balance our civil liberties with our national security interests? I'll go on record as not having a clear answer to that question.
Lisa, good to see you around. I think I agree with about 99% of your comment.
Signing statements are extremely common. What is rare, very rare, is when a president will hold a signing ceremony and then list what parts of the law he intends to follow and what parts he claims he doesn't have to. I know of three separate times when Bush has done just that.
The ceremony isn't so much to give an interpretation of the law, mainly because the executive cannot interpret laws, that is the job of the judicial branch. Are there any legal bindings to Bush's words? Very good question. The executive cannot make laws either, and certainly they are not above the law. I think if Nixon taught us anything it's that the president cannot exempt himself from laws he doesn't agree with. And that is what Bush is trying to do.
By Bush claiming that he doesn't have to consult congress on his actions, Bush is essentially denying the congress oversight power, which is granted to the congress in the Constitution. This whole charade by Bush is a definite Constitutional crisis. And frankly it's getting very old.
If Hillary held a press conference and said that she was not bound by specific laws, the whole Republican, neocon, religious right, nut job faction would go nuts and probably try to deport her to deserted island somewhere. Bush should be treated the same.
Your second to last line sums up this entire argument perfectly. "It's a tricky question to answer-- how do we as a country balance our civil liberties with our national security interests?"
As always, Bush is hiding behind this whole "we are at war" crap to say that he isn't bound by the Constitution. A war that Congress hasn't declared and a war that the Republicans claim is entirely, and only, theirs to dictate and debate. And that is beyond old.
Surely the president (whoever it might be) cannot be allowed to decide what allows will apply to them. If so, take away the term limits and we then have a dictatorship.
Thanks for reading. I owe you so many visits!! I will try this weekend to pay up my debts.
I wasn't responding to your post to disagree with you, although I suppose that's a natural assumption to make when I reply to your posts. ;)
The understanding I have of the whole process is obviously inferior to yours. The interpretation part I got from a post at the Volokh Conspiracy which, I'll admit, is a little bit over my head. I think that there may be a difference between the responsibilities of advice and consent for the Congress as opposed to oversight. But that may be just a slight semantical difference. You're the expert on this (or closer to it than I am).
You are assuming a lot of Hillary. She amuses me...and at this point she appears unelectable. We don't want her deported. She's too entertaining for that. We just don't think that she did a quality job when she was co-President with Bill. Many people don't like Hillary in addition to the religious right, nut jobs, and neo-cons. Like me. But back to your point. How do we know that the Clintons broke no laws while in power? I am not at all a conspiracy theorist, but there sure was a lot of smoke there, if you know what I'm sayin'.
Ok. I have heard your arguments here. So, I am going to put several questions to you directly. Do you support your fellow Democrats who are calling for the impeachment of Dubya? I'm not sure they have a case. Convince me. Also, what do you think of what Feingold did -- geniune principled opposition or political stunt? I would be interested to read your thoughts on this.
Sorry about Duke. Better luck next year. :P
Don't worry about being absent from my blog (you might want to update your link to it though). I haven't really written anything worth commenting on for quite some time now.
You are right he is no better than "me". It amazes me that he thinks that he can do whatever the hell he wants because he has the title of "President". I have the title of "woman"... so I suppose if I lived in South Dakota... and if I wanted to have an abortion... the law doesn't matter ... so I'll have that abortion.
This doesn't set well... it's do as I say not as I do! And that is a DAMN shame!
Roller Coaser ride... indeed!
Lisa, remember we are agreeing with 99% of each other :)
You have nothing inferior to me, trust me. The only thing that gives me an advantage is that for about the last six years I have been working in state and federal politics, so my proximity is closer, but that's all. You are very good.
I don't think Hillary is unelectable. I think we have to remember that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were considered unelectable as well.
I'll try to answer some of your questions here...
"How do we know that the Clintons broke no laws while in power?"-- Bill Clinton did break the law. He lied to a federal grand jury and was impeached by the House and acquitted in the Senate for it. Out of office he pled down and lost his bar license and paid hefty fines.
"Do you support your fellow Democrats who are calling for the impeachment of Dubya?"-- A quick answer to that is, no. I don't support the censure of Bush. Nor do I support his impeachment. I was against the Republican witch-hunt of the Clintons, which was entirely politically motivated, and I'm against it for the Bush's. Party politics do not, and should not, get to decide who the president will be. That's up to the people, or at least it used to be. The best way for the Dems to get people where they want them is to win elections. Same for Republicans. The Republican Congress spent over $70 million on the Starr investigation, and that same Republican Congress spent a meager $7 million on the 9/11 Commission. Something is very wrong with Republican priorities. We also have to remember that not one single independent council has been setup to investigate President Bush. If Bush were investigated to a tenth of what Clinton was, Bush would have been out a long time ago. Politics can be such a wasteful game.
"Also, what do you think of what Feingold did -- geniune principled opposition or political stunt?"-- Political stunt of the exact same nature of the Starr council except the Dems don't have control of Congress.
Hopefully I made sense with these. Thanks for your curiosity.
Totally sucks that Duke is gone. The Salukis left early and now the Dukies are out. My March has been ruined.
Thanks for reminding me to update my link. I will do it tonight. And I will also pay you a visit as well, which you are entirely worthy of :)
Shayna, great to see you as well. I think next week sometime I will be around Clarksville, TN. I'll have to bring my guitar :)
Apparently, according to Bush at least, American citizens can now decide what laws we want to follow. I'm not a woman, but I totally understand your desire for your right to privacy. Thanks for reading...I owe you some visits too.
Clarksville, ay? That is cool! I'm so excited that you have picked up the ole' guitar again!
If you are in Clarksville... go to the Blackhorse Brewery and Pub... the best home made pizza and the best home made beer... have a Vanilla Beer for me... PLEASE!!!
Shayna, yeah that guitar got a lot of use this weekend. I need to take it to Memphis and learn the blues. Memphis is awesome!
I've been to the Blackhorse many times. Most of my mom's side of the family lives in Clarksville. Some live in Jackson and the rest live in Alabama and Kentucky. Clarksville is a fun town, but can get a little on the boring side. I will try the vanilla beer for ya, and probably about 15 others as well :)
You do know why I asked the Clinton question, don't you? Maybe I am misinterpreting your post to say that Bush has done something unusual in the way he has interpreted his Constitutional authority and the powers that the Constitution allows him to have. Is that a correct read of what you said there? Clinton was involved in something similar as far as the warrantless wiretapping is concerned, so I'm not ready to say that Bush has done something unprecedented here.
As far as Hillary goes, right now she seems to be sabotaging her own candidacy, at least based on what I've seen. But it is a fair point to make that nobody saw the other Clinton or Dubya as electable either. (I will mention, however, that Bill had pretty weak opposition, especially in the second term election.)
I think independent councils and commissions in general are a waste of time and money. Why? Because politicians are more interested in self-preservation than getting at the truth. The 9/11 commission was a good example of this. No one seemed to be interested in blaming either administration for the intelligence failures that apparently took place. Jamie Gorelick should have recused herself from participating in that since she did help to set policy under the Clinton administration. If Bush is so incompetent that he would have been thrown out of office if there was an investigation, then I can't understand how you would be against impeachment or even censure. Would either course accomplish very much? Probably not. I don't think there's a strong case for either one, as I said before. But if you believe so strongly that Bush has abused his power, wouldn't it be logical to support some form of reprimand for him?
You are much more reasonable than the Democrats running your party right now. I'm not sure how much Feingold's stunt will help him as far as his presidential aspirations are concerned, but it was sort of entertaining to watch him make the attempt. I don't really consider Feingold as a serious contender for '08, but maybe the lefties at Kos will put him over the top.
The Final Four includes no team I picked. I don't know why I torture myself by filling out a bracket every year. Oh well. At least for me, I'm looking forward to regular season baseball soon. YAY. Thanks for the compliment. :)
Lisa, I'm not sure you are misreading my post at all, but I'm also not sure that we are entirely on the same page either ;)
The president has no Constitutional authority to interpret laws. Also, the Constitution does not allow the president, or any citizen, to pick and choose what laws they will follow. So when Bush says he is not bound by certain laws, he is infusing all three branches of government into the presidency. Not only is that un-Constitutional, it's un-American. I would seriously doubt that any Republican would support Clinton with such actions.
I have not seen any evidence, beyond Republican talking points, that Clinton used warrantless spying as a means of his implied Constitutional powers. I would be curious to see any charges that Clinton did the same.
I also do not remember Clinton ever claiming that he was not bound by laws. His testimony was that he didn't do the crime, not that he was above the law. Bush is admitting to most of what he's doing but stating that he isn't bound by laws. I'll take the liar any day.
I do entirely disagree that independent councils are a waste of time and money. If you believe so, then you must profusely disagree with the current Republican Party who have convened more independent and dependent investigative councils in American history.
As far as censure and impeachment are concerned, I don't support the party politics of personal destruction. If the call for a censure on Bush was bi-partisan then that is something I would support. As long as it looks like a witch-hunt by the Dems it will backfire. But give it time, all could change with the drop of a hat.
I do believe that Bush has abused his power. But I don't believe he has abused his power beyond what Lincoln did, or FDR or especially Wilson. I do support a reprimand, it's called the vote I casted against Bush in '04. That's democracy. Party politics isn't.
I don't think any person could have picked this years final four. I'm going for George Mason. I like the underdogs and mid-majors, well except for Duke. But this years final four just doesn't seem as exciting to me. I'm ready for some baseball and warmer weather for sure.
Thanks for reading.
I see it as you do at this point mj ; he is assumming authority he does not have and it is unprecedented as far as I can tell. This is like some depserate end of the road Hail Mary.
My brother was devestated that UConn lost. lol
I say LSU takes it all ...the year of the hurricane and all.
class.......................................
So... did you play this weekend in the band you were talking about? The Memphis Blues... yeah that would be awesome! ;) Memphis awesome? Not so sure about that... not as clean as it use to be. Go there about every 3 months to visit friends.
Gosh... The Blackhorse was the place! I became a regular there. I wonder if the same people work there? :) Use to date a guy "Bobby" (had earings and nose rings) that use to bartender there. I use to live over in the area closer to Ashland City. I loved Clarksville... had great times there... sometimes wish I was still there. ;)
Alabama? What parts? I am right here on the Alabama line... Huntsville, Madison, Athens area...
Please do have one of those Vanilla Beers for me... and one of their chicken pizza's... YUMMY! ;)
If I was still there I'd meet ya for a beer! :) Oh and The Front Page Deli... great place toooo! ;)
Shayna, I didn't play with a band, but my little brother did come over, who is so good at the guitar, and him and I jammed for a couple hours. That's the most I've played in years. It was fun.
True, Memphis is filthy. It takes days afterwards to feel clean again. I do love the music there. There is just nothing else like it anywhere. I don't get to Memphis a whole lot. It's kinda way down there.
I think I've seen that bartender guy you mentioned, I was just there about a month ago. Growing up I spent a lot of time in Clarksville. I dated a girl once from there and I still have all kinds of aunts, uncles and cousins who live there. And the Blackhorse was always the place to go, especially when I got older.
My family in Alabama live in Decatur/Huntsville area. My uncle works at the space and rocket center in Huntsville. Growing up, I spent most of my summers first in Clarksville, then on to Murfreesboro and then a week or two in Decatur, Alabama. And of course at Lake Barkley and LBL. Aaahhhh summers on the lake...I miss those days.
Alice, I was glad UConn lost :) I didn't want to see them win it again. I wouldn't mind seeing LSU win it. As long as UCLA doesn't, I'll be happy.
Have fun in class.
I love what Lisa said.
The assertion that Bush is 'incompetent' because he doesn't have to abide by the "legal requirement that he inform Congress about the FBI's use of expanded police powers," is ridiculous.
Is he supposed to place his trust in someone like Jay Rockefeller who leaks classified information? I think not. Or Kennedy or Schumer or Leahy or Boxer or Biden?
Bush would be 'incompetent' if did that.
What Bush DID say (and he is 100% correct in his assertion) is that he would withhold information from Congress relating to information that would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Sounds like a very astute, competent leader to me.
Kent, Bush doesn't have to place his trust in anybody. His trust is in the Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold. He doesn't get to decide what parts of the Constitution he will follow, for even the quote you mention he says he will uphold the duties of the executive which would require that he follow the Constitution-- which would also mean that he follow the law and not declare himself above it. Can't have it both ways.
I don't recall the Founding Fathers asking Bush who he would trust before they wrote the Constitution. Heck, if this is all a matter of trust then why do why have a Congress?
I'll place your comment that you made here today away in a safe place and keep it for when Hillary or another Dem becomes president and you are arguing against their trampling on the Constitution. If you think it's fine for Bush to do this, then you'll gladly agree when Hillary does.
Good to see you around. And thanks for reading.
Great post and well said.
Post a Comment