Exercise R Us

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: > WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush > was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming > the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. > In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Bush > had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, > raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than > 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. > In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power > amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the > opportunity to override the veto. > For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national > security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard > them. > The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way > was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of > separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents > have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a > president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." > If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel > said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential > veto." > The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of > Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to > augment presidential power. > At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen > Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the > provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." > Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said > the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted > by Congress. > advertising > Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which > detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not enforce. > Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. > "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those > issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant > attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate > way." > Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the study > panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and to the > rule of law." > At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will consider > several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial review of > signing statements. > The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, > Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had > occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which > they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White > House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional > statutes." > But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more forcefully, > more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence > federal agencies and judges. > In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional > objections to new laws. > The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic > language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It urged > Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the > reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he can > disregard or decline to enforce a statute. > How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead?

Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ bracket whose presidency the wad benefits.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: > WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President > Bush > was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming > the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. > In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said > Bush > had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, > raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more > than > 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. > In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power > amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the > opportunity to override the veto. > For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national > security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard > them. > The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way > was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of > separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents > have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a > president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." > If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel > said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a > presidential > veto." > The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of > Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to > augment presidential power. > At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen > Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the > provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." > Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said > the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted > by Congress. > advertising > Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which > detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not > enforce. > Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. > "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those > issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant > attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate > way." > Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the > study > panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and > to the > rule of law." > At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will > consider > several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial > review of > signing statements. > The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, > Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had > occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which > they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White > House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional > statutes." > But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more > forcefully, > more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence > federal agencies and judges. > In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional > objections to new laws. > The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic > language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It > urged > Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the > reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he > can > disregard or decline to enforce a statute. > How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits.

Hmmm, My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: >> WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President >> Bush >> was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by >> claiming >> the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. >> In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said >> Bush >> had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, >> raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more >> than >> 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. >> In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power >> amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the >> opportunity to override the veto. >> For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national >> security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard >> them. >> The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way >> was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of >> separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, >> presidents >> have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a >> president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." >> If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the >> panel >> said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a >> presidential >> veto." >> The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and >> members of >> Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a >> device to >> augment presidential power. >> At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen >> Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the >> provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." >> Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, >> said >> the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws >> enacted >> by Congress. >> advertising >> Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, >> which >> detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not >> enforce. >> Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. >> "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those >> issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant >> attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate >> way." >> Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the >> study >> panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and >> to the >> rule of law." >> At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will >> consider >> several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial >> review of >> signing statements. >> The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew >> Jackson, >> Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had >> occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to >> which >> they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White >> House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional >> statutes." >> But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more >> forcefully, >> more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence >> federal agencies and judges. >> In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional >> objections to new laws. >> The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic >> language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It >> urged >> Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the >> reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says >> he can >> disregard or decline to enforce a statute. >> How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits. > Hmmm, > My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

That was once true.

Response:

> My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

Yeah, you’d *never* see a Democrat President doing something like this, simply couldn’t happen–Cough-Carter-Cough, you’re so well-informed on these issues. The way it works Tony is a President who believes a bill infringes on his constitutional authority or is in some other way not constitutional can issue statements to that effect and sooner or later the courts will decide if he’s right.  Abraham Lincoln, for example, didn’t think Congress had the authority to tell him he couldn’t fire a particular general in command of the army (Grant).  Many other Presidents have used signing statements literally back to the founding of the nation.  That isn’t support for Bush’s use of signing statements BTW, merely pointing out it isn’t something Karl Rove (or Alito depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer) thought up a couple of years ago. It’s a little different in Canada of course, there the constitution gives the government the ability to do as it pleases and simply announce they’re going to ignore the supreme court if it rules against them, it’s called the notwithstanding clause, you might recall the govt. of Quebec using it to ignore the supreme court’s ruling on their paranoid language laws.  Isn’t it nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much tidier that way.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law. > Yeah, you’d *never* see a Democrat President doing something like this, > simply couldn’t happen–Cough-Carter-Cough, you’re so well-informed on these > issues. > The way it works Tony is a President who believes a bill infringes on his > constitutional authority or is in some other way not constitutional can > issue statements to that effect and sooner or later the courts will decide > if he’s right.  Abraham Lincoln, for example, didn’t think Congress had the > authority to tell him he couldn’t fire a particular general in command of > the army (Grant).  Many other Presidents have used signing statements > literally back to the founding of the nation.  That isn’t support for Bush’s > use of signing statements BTW, merely pointing out it isn’t something Karl > Rove (or Alito depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer) thought up a > couple of years ago. > It’s a little different in Canada of course, there the constitution gives > the government the ability to do as it pleases and simply announce they’re > going to ignore the supreme court if it rules against them, it’s called the > notwithstanding clause, you might recall the govt. of Quebec using it to > ignore the supreme court’s ruling on their paranoid language laws.  Isn’t it > nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much > tidier that way.

Hi, Better than dictatorship. To have a true democracy, prliament needs full independence. In Canada, it’s different because we have to respect Quebec’s uniqueness. Notwithstanding clause is a mechanism for check and balance. Still Supereme court has final say. If all else fails, GG can dissolve the government. AS YOU KNOW! Hmm,What did Abe say in Gettisburgh?

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: >> WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President >> Bush >> was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming >> the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. >> In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said >> Bush >> had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, >> raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more >> than >> 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. >> In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power >> amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the >> opportunity to override the veto. >> For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national >> security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard >> them. >> The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way >> was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of >> separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents >> have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a >> president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." >> If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel >> said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a >> presidential >> veto." >> The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of >> Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to >> augment presidential power. >> At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen >> Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the >> provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." >> Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said >> the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted >> by Congress. >> advertising >> Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which >> detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not >> enforce. >> Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. >> "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those >> issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant >> attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate >> way." >> Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the >> study >> panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and >> to the >> rule of law." >> At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will >> consider >> several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial >> review of >> signing statements. >> The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, >> Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had >> occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which >> they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White >> House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional >> statutes." >> But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more >> forcefully, >> more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence >> federal agencies and judges. >> In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional >> objections to new laws. >> The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic >> language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It >> urged >> Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the >> reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he >> can >> disregard or decline to enforce a statute. >> How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits. >Hmmm, >My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

I thought they were using the golden rule, he who owns the gold … — Ken Wilson

Response:

> Hi, > Better than dictatorship. To have a true democracy, prliament needs full > independence.

understanding is nobody can be above the law, now you’re saying that the party in power should be able to ignore the supreme court if it doesn’t like being found unconstitutional?  And you have the nerve to criticize Bush’s signing statements? > In Canada, it’s different because we have to respect Quebec’s uniqueness.

In other words kiss their ass. > Notwithstanding clause is a mechanism for check and balance.

Bull, it was a bribe paid to Quebec to get them to go along with the repatriation of the constitution. > Still Supereme court has final say.

Sure, you can point to examples of that with no problem. > If all else fails, GG can dissolve the government.

Yeah, fat chance, when was the last time that was done. > AS YOU KNOW! Hmm,What did Abe say in Gettisburgh?

Since when do you want details, you’re the sweeping generalizations based on little or no information specialist.

Response:

And the fool settles in with agreement to the name of the thread… American Bar Association says "Bush undermining rule of law"* This is how the thief-in-chief got to disgrace the office he was NOT elected into…sub-simian proletariates like dead gas here, who think bearing 270 is East, etc. Enjoy his continued self-immolation. tick tick, 11 tick tick ‘08.  :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Isn’t it nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much > tidier that way.

Response: