Report: Bush Has Violated 750 Laws

[Flashover 0]

President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

 

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...laws/?page=full

 

 

[Rude Rick 0]

[Cdub100 3,381]

I blame James Polk.

[Guest tiki_gods]

Franklin Pierce. He was from NH. He and Gay Vito got it on in the bushes.

[GettnHuge 1]

:reportored:

 

Observe all copyright laws when posting copyrighted material. If the material does not belong to you, do not post (cut & paste) the full article/text on the FF Today Board or FF Today Forums without permission. Post only the introductory paragraph then credit the source/author and link to the article. Posting articles from other sources in their entirety is a violation of our Posting Guidelines. If you do so, your thread and account will be deleted.

[Flashover 0]

:reportored:

 

Observe all copyright laws when posting copyrighted material. If the material does not belong to you, do not post (cut & paste) the full article/text on the FF Today Board or FF Today Forums without permission. Post only the introductory paragraph then credit the source/author and link to the article. Posting articles from other sources in their entirety is a violation of our Posting Guidelines. If you do so, your thread and account will be deleted.

 

Better? By the way that was not the whole article I originally posted.

 

Examples of the president's signing statements

 

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

 

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

 

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

 

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

 

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

 

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

 

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

 

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

 

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

 

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

 

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

 

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

 

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

 

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

 

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

 

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

 

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

 

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

 

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

 

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

 

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

[SUXBNME 1,335]

Better? By the way that was not the whole article I originally posted.

 

Examples of the president's signing statements

 

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

 

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

 

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

 

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

 

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

 

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

 

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

 

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

 

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

 

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

 

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

 

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

 

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

 

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

 

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

 

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

 

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

 

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

 

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

 

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

 

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

 

 

shut up shut up shut up

 

 

[Rude Rick 0]

shut up shut up shut up

 

Ignorance is bliss, isnt it?

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Laws were meant to be broken

[hoytdwow 202]

It's not law-breaking. It is statute-circumvention related program activities.

HTH!

[Voltaire 4,560]

Maybe Hillary will pardon him.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Maybe he declassified the laws before he broke them?

[brinett9 0]

Maybe he declassified the laws before he broke them?

[Rude Rick 0]

Maybe he declassified the laws before he broke them?

[DanXIII 8]

Is it possible to pardon yourself as President? I have a feeling this would be the president to do it.

[MDC 5,891]

Is it possible to pardon yourself as President? I have a feeling this would be the president to do it.

 

It's not legal to pardon yourself, but since Bush thinks he's a monarch and doesn't have to answer to the rule of law anyway, he might as well.

[Flashover 0]

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

That's the first grievance listed against King George III in the Declaration Of Independence. President Bush thinks the Constitution grants him the authority to do what was one of the primary things the Constitution was crafted to prevent.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

750!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You would think the Dems would be lining up by the hundreds to impeach him, or at least censure him. Wonder why they don't?

[SUXBNME 1,335]

Ignorance is bliss, isnt it?

So is you're stupidity, appearantly..

[t.j 35]

At first I thought this was about Reggie Bush.

 

I forgot what bored I was on.

[gocolts 300]

750!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You would think the Dems would be lining up by the hundreds to impeach him, or at least censure him. Wonder why they don't?

 

All that,yet..............they have nothing.

[SUXBNME 1,335]

 

All that,yet..............they have nothing.

Hey...shut up!! Ignorance is bliss

 

 

Stupid libs

[Flashover 0]

750!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You would think the Dems would be lining up by the hundreds to impeach him, or at least censure him. Wonder why they don't?

 

Probably could if the Republicans didn't control the House & Senate. But instead our spineless congress bends over & takes it from Bush, letting him spend recklessly while breaking the law whenever he sees fit.

 

 

Stupid Neocons

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Probably could if the Republicans didn't control the House & Senate. But instead our spineless congress bends over & takes it from Bush, letting him spend recklessly while breaking the law whenever he sees fit.

Stupid Neocons

 

One of your own recently brought up a censure resolution and the Dems ran away from it like it was a tax cut.

[Flashover 0]

One of your own recently brought up a censure resolution and the Dems ran away from it like it was a tax cut.

 

I must say that was pretty cowardly of the ones that didn't back it. Just another example of why one should not blindly follow one party. I still feel people back Bush because he's a Republican and no matter how bad he is they will never vote or support anything else. Good thing not everyone is like that.

 

 

 

''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I must say that was pretty cowardly of the ones that didn't back it.

 

You mean the 99.9% of Dems who ran from it?

[Flashover 0]

No worse than the Republicans that allow Bush to run this country & their party into the ground.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No worse than the Republicans that allow Bush to run this country & their party into the ground.

 

Yeah, it's better to not stand by your principles than it is to run a party who controls the House, Senate and White House, as well as a smoking economy.

[gocolts 300]

One of your own recently brought up a censure resolution and the Dems ran away from it like it was a tax cut.

 

I think it was Feingold who brought up a censure resolution.I don't think a single democrate joined him on the resolution.I'm not for sure though.I just remeber liberals being asked about the Feingold censure resolution,and they would immediately distance themselves from Feingold and the entire idea of censure.

Who else was with Feingold on that?????

 

Anybody??

 

Anybody??

[Flashover 0]

Yeah, it's better to not stand by your principles than it is to run a party who controls the House, Senate and White House, as well as a smoking economy.

 

It was sad to see Democrats back away from censure. Harkin & Boxer are the only I can think of that backed it. Still no better then the Republicans who have no spine & refuse to question or have any oversight over Bush. What about principles like Fiscal Responsibility? or Constitutional rights? They don't seem to be standing by them and a lot of others too. Guess they don't have much of a backbone either.

 

 

 

Back to the topic of the thread. How do you feel about Bush claiming that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution? Do you agree with him or no?

[Rude Rick 0]

It was sad to see Democrats back away from censure. Harkin & Boxer are the only I can think of that backed it. Still no better then the Republicans who have no spine & refuse to question or have any oversight over Bush. What about principles like Fiscal Responsibility? or Constitutional rights? They don't seem to be standing by them and a lot of others too. Guess they don't have much of a backbone either.

Back to the topic of the thread. How do you feel about Bush claiming that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution? Do you agree with him or no?

[Bill E. 666]

At first I thought this was about Reggie Bush.

 

I forgot what bored I was on.

 

That would be just the Saint's luck, wouldn't it? Of course if it were Reggie that violated 750 laws, they could always trade him to Miami for their next two 1st and 2nd round picks.

[MDC 5,891]

 

I think it was Feingold who brought up a censure resolution.I don't think a single democrate joined him on the resolution.I'm not for sure though.I just remeber liberals being asked about the Feingold censure resolution,and they would immediately distance themselves from Feingold and the entire idea of censure.

Who else was with Feingold on that?????

 

Anybody??

 

Anybody??

 

The big reason more Democrats aren't pressing for censure is that it would never pass a GOP-lead Congress, so it would just make the Dems look even more bitter and incompetent than usual. I think the GOP will hold onto Congress in the fall, but you can bet that Bush is sweating it - if somehow the GOP does lose Congress he'll be looking at nonstop investigations.