Bush's use of signing statements......treason in action

[Osborn F Enready]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13568438.htm

Yea, Mr. Bush is on the job, while the mainstream media sleeps and turns its head.

The only televised source I have heard of this was on the Colbert Report, which prompted me to do some looking.

What do you guys think of all this?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13568438.htm Yea, Mr. Bush is on the job, while the mainstream media sleeps and turns its head. The only televised source I have heard of this was on the Colbert Report, which prompted me to do some looking. What do you guys think of all this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

Hardly an unknown tool of the executive branch.

It is the executive's way of advising the legislative of how it interprets the law and how it will proceed based upon that interpretation.

If you step back from the alarmist rhetoric in the thread topic, you will see that it is actually a very useful tool for all concerned. One must admit that the legislative branch is pretty good at passing laws they have not read and interpretting the laws they enact to suit their needs.

In this case, the executive warns the legislative of how it seeks to proceed. That gives the legislative the opportunity to tweak the law they passed, if they give a damn past simply enacting a feel good law and walking away, in order to disallow the behavior they don't want to see.

You should be railing aginst the legislative for not taking the action necessary to deny the executive.

But that does not serve the Bash Bush crowd, so it goes unspoken.

[Osborn F Enready]

You are full of it Apeman.

I bash Congress and the Senate, both sides of the corrupt aisle.

I have no respect for almost any seated representative except a very select few, one of the most, being Ron Paul.

I think both parties should be yanked out by the short hairs by impeachment across all states for all state level and up representatives.

My point was simple.

Over history, up until this seated Bush, all presidents total used about 350 signing statements total. So far, the Bushmaster has racked up over 700 by himself.

Facts Ape, facts.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You are full of it Apeman. I bash Congress and the Senate, both sides of the corrupt aisle. I have no respect for almost any seated representative except a very select few, one of the most, being Ron Paul. I think both parties should be yanked out by the short hairs by impeachment across all states for all state level and up representatives. My point was simple. Over history, up until this seated Bush, all presidents total used about 350 signing statements total. So far, the Bushmaster has racked up over 700 by himself. Facts Ape, facts.

Facts? Which state what? What logical implication can be drawn from these facts?

That Bush is so forthright with his actions as Chief of the Executive branch that he is willing to openly state, and in clearly worded writing, what he plans to do, based upon the executives interpretation of the law?

Sputter, Sputter! Of course not! It must be something nefarious

And yet the knowledge of Bush's use of an Executive Branch tool that has been in place for many years and is completely above board is widely known, and for all to see. As you would have us see it, he is using it to "Put himself above the law!" (Apparently by following it :rolleyes: )

If that's true, then why aren't our stalwart leaders in the legislative branch, who clearly know what they meant when they passed the law, correcting the executive?

If you give me instructions on how to change a tire, and I tell you that I understand you to be saying "y", when you know you mean to say 'x", and you do not correct me; don't blame me when you're shooting sparks from you brake caliper down the highway.

[bishop]

ape's made his way back to my ignore list.. if i wanted to read mindless partisan banter, i'd go read hannity's blog.

Quote by: article WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law. <snip> They may soon have an ally on the Supreme Court. As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote a 1986 memo outlining plans for expanded use of presidential signing statements. Although Alito told his bosses that the aggressive use of assertive signing statements "would increase the power of the executive to shape the law," he acknowledged doubts about their legal significance. Reagan adopted the strategy and used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, according to Kelley's tally. President George H.W. Bush challenged 146 laws; President Clinton challenged 105. The current president has lodged more than 500 challenges so far. Bush and his legal advisers offer a variety of arguments to support their claims to power. In their view, the Constitution's directive that "the president shall be commander in chief" gives Bush virtually unlimited authority on issues related to national security. They also rely heavily on the "unitary executive" theory to resist congressional directives to federal agencies. The theory rests on the Constitution's clause that says that "executive power shall be vested in a president." Bush has cited the theory, which has not been fully tested in court, more than 100 times in his signing statements.

damn... i NEVER knew this happened at all.. pretty amazing, and frightening.... since when could the executive just do whatever the hell it wanted - even if it's against the mandated will of congress? this is the sort of shit that happens in outright dictatorships... (i guess that's what we have, hidden behind this mirage of democracy.)

[Apeman81]

Quote by: bishop ape's made his way back to my ignore list.. if i wanted to read mindless partisan banter, i'd go read hannity's blog. damn... i NEVER knew this happened at all.. pretty amazing, and frightening.... since when could the executive just do whatever the hell it wanted - even if it's against the mandated will of congress? this is the sort of shit that happens in outright dictatorships... (i guess that's what we have, hidden behind this mirage of democracy.)

In light of the fact that the executive branch receives instructions, (in the form of the written law), and then tells the legislative branch how it interprets the law, (by issuing a signing statement) to which the legislative branch can respond in the form of an addendum to the original law clarifying the intent of the law, do you really think this frankly demagogic and alarmist reaction is warranted?

Dictators don’t allow legislatures to write laws; they write them for them.
Dictators don’t explain their intent. They just do it.

A FACT is that the executive branch has long had this tool at its disposal.
A FACT is that the legislative branch has the power to correct any “dictatorial” usurpation of power.
A FACT is that this thread seeks to impugn the executive branch by its calling into question whether this lawful exchange is treasonous.

A FACT is that it is clearly not.

[patriotsACT]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13568438.htm Yea, Mr. Bush is on the job, while the mainstream media sleeps and turns its head. The only televised source I have heard of this was on the Colbert Report, which prompted me to do some looking. What do you guys think of all this?

Looks like more talk in one direction and action in another. Typical Bushian/Rep tactic. Little smoke, little mirror, say what the people want to here.. And then do the opposite.

[PatrickHenry]

Osborn, we need to keep the State of Emergency front and center. All of the Executive's expansionist power can be traced back to this state of affairs.

There is no doubt that Bush is presently able to run this government single handed( without Congress) should he choose to do so. That is the nature of the Declared State of Emergency: the Constitution is superseded for the duration. In 1933, Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. it means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same."

Here's what we need to do:

Example Letter to the House of Representatives Date: Your Name Address City, State, Zip The Honorable United States House of Representatives 2449 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Sir (or Madam): I am taking advantage of my American freedom, while I still have it, to urge you to stand up for the American people, and make it your position that the declared state of national emergency which has operated in this great nation for almost five years be canceled immediately. I have been apprised of the amendment to Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and understand the extraordinary powers it has conferred upon the Executive branch of our government. These excessive powers have been used to sell our nation into slavery, by effectively nationalizing our vital industries and separating the American citizen from their rights under common law. I know that the Constitution of this United States has been set aside under this "national emergency". I urge you now, as a servant of the American people, to commit yourself to working for its immediate return to its rightful owners - We, the People. If you are unwilling or unable to take this stand in defense of your country, I request that you tender your resignation so that another may take your place who is willing and/or able to do what you are not. The Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep our government from falling into error". As such, I hereby charge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and 2040, and 12 USC 95 (a) and (b), reestablish the Constitution of the United States to its rightful position in our government. Furthermore I urge a cancellation of the Declared State of Emergency announced on September 23, 2001. Sincerely,

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick, I agree whole-heartedly, and was simply trying to show more proof of the fact with this entire thread.

There are many around us everyday, who are still asleep to the fact that our Constitution has been rendered useless, and our rights trampled to near non-recognition status.

I am going to copy that sample letter, and mail it every single person I know, with a request they too participate and mail their representatives. I would also like to urge every other reader of this post, to do the same.

We the people must act now, because though the cliche' has been used many times, it is actually correct in its application this time to say accurately that "time is running out."

Thanks for the post, and the excellent sample letter.

[Osborn F Enready]

I also did this Patrick:

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/52990/view

I hope you don't mind?

( I mailed my copy to all 18 Ohio Congressional Reps, as well as our two Senate Reps. )

[PatrickHenry]

I don't mind at all, Osborn. I stole a lot of that sample letter from another site anyhow, then modified it. That's what the medium is FOR, isn't it?

And to Apeman: Do you support the idea of a single person holding ALL the reins of power, as Bush seems to have just now? If so, I assume you will be supportive when another person assumes the throne. Just as you were during Clinton's Presidency?

Myself, I support a balanced system of government, with three branches providing checks and balances, and a distribution of powers between states and federal levels. And I believe that the government that governs least, governs best.