-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/bush_exempts_himself_from_the_patriot_act -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Christmas Holiday Open Thread
- Sarah Palin: I Was Right About The Death Panels
- Page 148 Of The Health Bill Will Allow Government To Determine The Care You Care
- So We Can Blow Up Terrorists With Cruise Missiles, But If We Capture Them They Get A Lawyer?
- Kent Conrad “Assumes” The Commerce Clause Would Allow Health Insurance Mandate
But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
We've got a President that sees fit to write his own laws. Isn't that special?
President Bush is simply recognizing that fact and upholding the independence of his office.
President Bush is breaking the law. Again.
If Bush can simply ignore laws that are passed by Congress, then what is the purpose of Congress in this Republic? Someone needs to reign in this President and soon, and I'm not looking to the gelding Democrats to do it.
What law? When was the first time?
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
This is more accurately construed as "Bush considers himself (or more accurately the Executive Branch) bound to tell Congress except in the specific circumstances mentioned", and the separation of powers suggests he's well within his rights to make those exceptions.
McCair: If Congress passes a law that it has no power to (constraining or interfering with the Executive in a manner or area the Constitution does not permit), that law (or that part of that law) is void, just as in any other context. If Congress passes a law voiding part of the Bill of Rights, that's void too (though in practice, of course, it acts like it's not void until the Courts get around to declaring it... but the Courts never get a chance if nobody stands up to it. Like the President is, to Congress, here. The System Is Working!).
Further, a signing document is a notice of intent and interpretation. Making one that states a policy is not the same as enacting that policy, so even if you were right about Not Telling Congress Everything Being A Crime... that crime hasn't been committed yet, because Congress hasn't not-been-informed about anything yet.
The whole point here is that he is not breaking the law, because it doesn't apply to him.
Tell me again, Bob. Make it bold and on-the-record. I'll do it for you:
The laws of the United States do not apply to President Bush.
I will ask again: what is the purpose of having three branches of government, all of which agree by majority vote to institute and uphold the law of the land, when one branch can claim that those laws do not apply?
Why bother with any legislation? The President is free to do whatever he likes, he doesn't need the approval of the people.
You agree with that?
So, why are we in Iraq again?
Rick, that would be the AUMF for Iraq.
Try to follow along.
Interesting section:
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
I guess that means it's over.
Either you complain because he "broke the law" (according to you), or that he exempted himself from the law.
Is there a difference?
What's with the "hate" thing you immediately apply to any poster that isn't in lockstep with the President? Don't lecture me on the need for rationality when you fall back on that old trope every other post you make. And the reference to Rosa Parks? WTF?
Rosa Parks broke the law. If you are so outraged at lawbreaking, where's your outrage at that? Just pointing up your hypocrisy. I call out hate whenever I see it. It's not about disagreeing with the President, it's about spewing hate at the President. There is a difference.
If you aren't outraged at Rosa Parks' lawbreaking, then you are an advocate of "good" lawbreaking and "bad" lawbreaking. That makes the judgment arbitrary, according to your personal values. One of those values I have noticed in many of your posts is hatred of the President and other conservatives.
There is an authorization for use of military force, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing. All branches of our government recognize this, even if you won't.
It is over when the President says its over or when Congress rescinds their authorization.
Actually, according to THIS authorization it's over when:
1. The United States of America's safety can no longer be threatened by Iraq
and
2. The Relevant U.N. Resolutions (cited above in the document) are enforced.
therefore,
it's over.
Rick, you clearly don't understand the issue. You didn't even know there were two separate authorizations.
Part of neutralizing the threat to America from Iraq is leaving the country in a situation where it will not be a threat in the future. What good is regime change if we simply topple the old dictator and leave, allowing the next band of brigands to take over?
Again, President Bush is prosecuting this war in accordance with his authorization from Congress. Just because you don't want it to be that way doesn't make it true.
Well no wonder you're confused, you obviously didn't even read the post.
The law applies to everybody. What Bush is exempting himself from is sharing information in instances where it would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
This is in keeping with the Constitution's separation of powers.
Of course I knew there were two authorizations, Rob. I was just leading you on.
Nuts and bolts is that Bush isn't going to be challenged on Iraq by a Republican Congress and the Democrats were the world's biggest lame-ass wimps to sign onto to this bastardized war in the first place. That notwithstanding, given a different Congress, his authorization most likely has run its course and he would have to do some heavy explaining and politicking to get more time/money - - and that would include a plan with real objectives.
Riiiigghhhttt...that's why you said this.
That is so laughably naive as to how these things work as to not even merit a response.
Go on thinking that if you must, but you're dead wrong.
It doesn't matter who the president of the country was, is and will be. There will always be people who will like and dislike the president. The only difference is the ability of that president to connect with its people and to hide the wrongdoings or make them appear good to the public eye.
iTech @ http://itech.webwarp.net
I'm really amazed, Rob must be a really wealthy man. Cause he's buying all the bullshit government says!
C'mon rob... can't you see when you are being treated like a sheep?
Mr Bush is the shepherd, and you're in the middle of the flock!
bulllllllllllllll shitttttttttttt
Actually, I routinely criticize both the President and Republicans. Probably unlike you, I am capable of looking past my partisanship to criticizing the folks on "my side" when they do things I don't agree with.
In this instnace, however, the President is right. Unless you've got something more persuasive to say on the matter than knee-jerk partisanship and expletives?
Rob, I did read the post, that's why I asked the question. Isn't "the performance of the executive's constitutional duties" really really broad enough to exmpt the president from any law of the land in this country. And if that is the case, then the president is above the laws of the country.
"
Oh yeah! I have no "partisanship" to start with. I really don't know which politician I dislike the most.
Regarding Patriot Act, Iraq, War and Terrorists, I really see nothing new under the sun, such as it was, it's still a bunch of lies.
Goverment bets on fear to do whatever they want, how they want and when they want.
America's never been safer. The problem is if you believe so, the patriot act never would be justified!
And by the way, war has not made America safer, cause hate against America has RAISED because of it.
Regards
Puzzle, this is what the President said:
Basically, the President is saying that he won't violate the Constitution or the duties of his office in complying with this legislation. Why do you have a problem with that?
Lets just apply the President's justification for spying to his own actions. If Bush isn't doing anything wrong then why should he worry about Congress looking at his records?
Robert108, you're the ignorant ass (or should I say twat in honor of the resident expert in ad hominem, 2h9?), who made the ridiculous assertion, a la Cheney, that the result of a different Congress would be:
What the hell is wrong with you?
If the law doesn't apply to the President, then he can't be constrained by the Legislative and Judicial branches, and we no longer have a system of checks and balances. A system of government without checks and balances and where the law doesn't apply to its leader is a monarchy or a dictatorship, not a democracy. I'd very much like to continue living in a democracy.
Not only am I suggesting it, I'm flat-out saying it . . . There are more Democrats with real-world military experience running. There are more common sense ideas for handling the world's criminals from Democrats. There is less corruption and corporate beholden-ness on the Democratic side with respect to issues of National Security than on the Crony-laden criminal Republican side.
Flat out saying it.
Rick, the Democrats have moved to capitalize on military candidates to put forth a more credible image on national security. This posturing is hardly endearing.
Well of course you are. You're a blind partisan who usually can't grasp the facts of a situation, and move beyond the party line and talking points, even when they're waved right in front of your face.
Basically, the President is saying that he won't violate the Constitution or the duties of his office in complying with this legislation. Why do you have a problem with that?
I have a huge problem with that, and I'll tell you why: the President has no constitutional right to say anything. The President does not make law. Congress makes law. Period. The President does not interpret law. The Courts interprets law. Period. The Executive branch is granted the power to execute the laws that Congress makes and the Courts uphold.
He's trying to use his "singing statements" as line-item vetoes, which, in 1998, were ruled unconstitutional.
For me, whether or not I agree with what he's saying is moot. He shouldn't be saying it.
Yes he does, it is in the 1st amendment. Same right you and I have to discuss on this forum.
The President is not making law here. Congress wrote the law, he signed it into law.
The President most certainly has the right to ignore laws which he feels are unconstitutional. At that point, if there is a challenge, there is a political process in place to move the matter over to the judicial branch for decision. This is how it works.
Yes, line-item vetoes are unconstitutional. Good thing he's not vetoing anything but rather making a statement.
So...you're against free speech for the President?
What a totally muddled argument you've put forward. I wonder if you even understand the basic framework our government works within.
Uh, yeah you are. I routinely put up posts criticizing the President and Republicans. I've yet to see you criticize your "side."
Wait a minute, now I have to serve in the military to have an opinion about this nation's national security legislation? Thanks for your service, Rick, but you are no more qualified to talk about these issues than I am.
Rob, how can the President ignore a law he feels is unconstitutional. I've never heard of such a thing. Only a court finds a law unconstitutional. What would prevent any president from ignoring a law because he/she thought it was unconstitutional, without a legal finding of unconstitutionality. And I have a problem with the broad wording of the document. It essentially allows his to circumvent the law.
LOL . . . Robert108, you are just too much. Could you have possibly restricted that question in any more manipulative way in order to get Bush out of any responsibility for 9/11?
I'll return your question with an equally ridiculous one to show you what a fun game this is:
Neither Kennedy, nor Johnson, nor Carter, nor Clinton had 9/11-scale attacks on Americans occur, does that mean that Republicans are just failures at protecting our citizens?
Rob, I'm going to ignore most of that and give you the benifit of the doubt that you were just being a prick and didn't actually miss the piont.
But here: find me that part of the "presentment clause" (article 1, section 8) where it says anything at all about "signing statements", "signing with reservations", or, in fact, anything other than signing or vetoing.
Of course he has free speech as an American. But not as the President. Saying what he thinks as George W. Bush is not the same thing as tacking the interpretations of the Executive branch onto a bill before signing. Not only that, but these interpretations end up acting as guidlines for the rest of the Executive branch to act on. He's pre-empting the courts by deciding for them whether or not laws apply to him and the rest of his branch of government.
Show me where in the constitution he is given these powers, since I obviously don't "understand the basic framework our government works within."
Rick, the Democrats have moved to capitalize on military candidates to put forth a more credible image on national security. This posturing is hardly endearing.
As far as I know, the vets coming back from Iraq and running for office as Democrats is a decision they have made themselves. You assert that the Democratic party is somehow manipulating them - and frankly, that's crap.
They do it of their own volition. You are unable to admit that - and spew the same tired partisan rubbish that Democrats are somehow less credible at managing the defense of this country.
Believe me, no poliician is less trusted at this point that George W. Bush and the GOP - on any issue you care to name.
We heard that before the 2004 Presidential elections. Why should we believe you now?
Rick: Since you obviously don't want to admit it, OBL came into power and thrived during the Clinton Administration; while Slick was pandering to Muslims, his enviro buddies created the condition of dependency on foreign oil, which lined the pockets of the terrorist nations. All of this came to fruition on 9/11/01, before GW passed his first budget, which means we were operating under Clintonian conditions. Clinton wasn't 100% responsible, but he and his minions and policies are largely responsible for 9/11, IMO. So, no, Republicans aren't less responsible for the safety of American citizens. The Dems are almost totally irresponsible, however, like I said before. All they do is whine and complain, and when asked what their plans are to protect us, they have nothing other than cut and run. The Dems are truly in a 9/10 mentality.
You still didn't answer the question, or my first one, either. Remember, the question began with "How..." I was asking for a plan. You gave none. Your post contains no data, as usual.
yeah? Where is he now? Falcon hunting with some more of Bush's best buddies? Maybe he's just hanging out in one of the royal Saudi Palaces, getting regular dialysis treatments? If Bush is such a great defender of Americans where is Osama?
I know you have a hard on for Clinton and want to blame him for everything that's wrong with W, but could you lay off the viagara for a moment and realize that a true leader takes responsibility for his actions and those of his subordinates, and no matter how much you'd love for Bush to be that leader, your hard-on is still for Clinton. Think about that for a few moments tonight as you try to get to sleep.
Eight years of ignoring OBL, and then passing off the mess, just like his crappy economic policies, to the next guy. It happened on Clinton's watch, and GW and the American public, especially the ones in the Twin Towers, got the consequences while Slick skated.
What would you have done? Another question you probably can't give a straight answer to.
In the interest of injecting some humor to McAir's denial-fest...
We now return you to Rob's regularly scheduled one-sided debate.
Robert108, pick up that entry-level philosophy book and turn to the section on argumentation. Straight forward answers are given to straight forward questions, not intentionally leading rhetorical questions. Work on it, kid.
What would I have done? I think, given the chance, I'd have taken Osama out with a missile strike when he was Falcon Hunting with Bush's best friends. But admittedly, I don't know how negatively that would have affected the region and our policies and diplomacy in the region - - so, if I'd have had that information I might not have.
Another thing I'd have done is place all airports and security forces on high alert when I received a daily briefing warning me that Osama Bin Laden was planning on having planes hijacked and used as weapons.
Another thing I'd have done is capture or kill Osama Bin Laden at Torah Borah.
Another thing I'd have done is pursue al Qaeda into the mountains of Pakistan.
Another thing I'd have done is attack al Qaeda in Indonesia.
Another thing I'd have done is place those captured on trial in an international forum in order to display them as common criminals and not legitimize them as an effective resistance force representative of a religious military movement, thereby attracting thousands of wide-eyed desperate recruits looking for a violent and authorized 'movement' to believe in.
Another thing I'd have done is focus on security of our transportation and cargo systems while locking down our porous borders.
but, of course I don't get my beliefs or experience from bumper stickers in Walmart parking lots.
In other words, you would do everything Clinton didn't do. He had the Able Danger intel, but chose to ignore it.
I seem to have posed a question you can answer, finally! Here's another one: Would you have taken OBL when he was offered to you in the nineties, or would you have used the legalistic excuse that we didn't have enough evidence against him, despite having the Able Danger intel? You say you would have gone after Al Qaeda in Indonesia. Would you have really offended your patrons, the Riyadhis(sp)? I guess you get your stuff from the bumper stickers at the MoveOn.org parking lot.
I guess you just can't answer my question, can you Robert?
don't you see how fun it is to act as if there's an unanswered question in the conversation?
Robert. You asked me what I'd do - not what Clinton did or did not do. Neither did you ask me my opinion of what Clinton did or did not do. But you did claim: "In other words, you would do everything Clinton didn't do. He had the Able Danger intel, but chose to ignore it." If I had wanted to put my statements in 'other words,' I'd have done so. The only part of what I'd have done that occured during the Clinton term was taking out Osama.
Now, Robert108, I will ask you a question. Do you think that legitimizing terror organization through undeclared wars, like Iraq is more effective in fighting and eliminating them or do you think that it strengthens them in terms of assets and personell?
Michael Sheuer is something of an expert on al Qaeda, and here's what he said.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to spend the rest of the day outside.
My answer to your question is: Neither one. I favor covert action, counter-terrorism, as the most effective weapon, maybe the only effective weapon, against the threat we now face, and have faced since at least 1972, from Islamic world terrorism.
Under the conditions presented to him by all his predecessors, not just Clinton, I think GW has done a good job, although I would have marginalized OBL right away and would have gone right into Iraq, rather than waiting 14 months. Fighting this war in the media is playing right into the hands of the jihadists, who are assembling a fan base of lefties all over the world. Doing all this in public has made it many times harder than it would have been had we done it covertly right after the first Gulf War.
Robert108, "the jihadists are assembling a fan base of lefties". So Because some disagree with the war and speak out, now we are controlled by the jihadists and we are fans. That's an out and outright lie. Yeah, you betcha, we've all been getting our daily jihadist emails with out talking points so we can respond to you using the jihadist talking points.
so where can we dissent? When can we dissent? When can I use my rights to ask for redress from my government under the U.S. Constitution?
In my opinion which has been stated by others as well, the opposition to the war while it has been fought has undoubtedly added to the length of the war and the number of casualties because the opposition to the war, so vocal and widely proclaimed by the media, has given heart and encouragement to the enemy.
In my opinion, you aren't willing to hold acountable the people that are actually responsible for the current situation in Iraq:
Rumsfeld. Cheney. Bremer. Bush.
Be a patriot. Ask them the tough questions, instead of regurgitating the increasing lame propaganda that the media is the cause of this debacle.
Rick: Notice the year; 1994
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp
Maybe I've missed something in the news, but where is this oil we've taken? Where is the oil that we're trying to control? I'll assume that we all know that most of the U.S. oil supply comes from Venezuela and not from the middle east, yes?
Secondly, even though none of us like war, we cannot simply just bail out at this point. We're building schools, hospitals, and helping them put together solid police departments. They're having free elections. They're less worried about their government killing them just to test the latest chemical weapon (which we all know Saddam has done). We have troops (not all, but some) that want to stay in Iraq to continue helping the Iraqui people. Let's just hope that the Iraqui's that are ignorant don't blow them up when they're trying to help.
Saddam was a terrorist. Less to the U.S. and more to his own people, but he was a terrorist nonetheless. We've removed him from power. Now we can bail and have Iraq become like many countries in Africa where one dictatorship is simply replaced by another... or we can help these people put a solid, effective, new governmental system in place.
Now back to the topic at hand. I'm a conservative, but I'm not a big fan of Bush. I'm also against the Patriot Act, in that it doesn't matter if I'm doing something wrong or not. The government doesn't have the right to read my emails or listen to my phone calls unless I've already given them reason to. Maybe that makes the government slightly less effective, but I'll side with Benjamin Franklin in that when balancing freedom and security (because they really are opposites), we should err in favor of freedoms.
That being said, the president needs to be able to do his job effectively. If that means that decisions need to be made in the interest of the security of this nation where it would be best if the president didn't tell congress about something, then so be it. He needs to be able to make those decisions.
But you'd better bet that it would NEED to be an issue of impending national security if he was going to make that decision.
This is a leading question. For the person asked to answer it, he would have to concede to your belief that there is an "undeclared war" going on that is "legitimizing terror organizations".
Maybe you should take your own advice Rick -
Take your own advice and work on it, kid.
That's sweet Likwid, coming to the defense of poor Robert.
So, where is that War Declaration? And why hasn't the DoD classified any of the military deaths in Iraq as caused by terrorism? I think those two points are pretty easily conceded.
I wasn't "coming to the defense" of anybody.
So, where is that War Declaration?
Pay attention.
And why hasn't the DoD classified any of the military deaths in Iraq as caused by terrorism?
Why would miltitary deaths be classified as terrorism deaths?
I think those two points are pretty easily conceded.
Pay attention.
CV Rick, now you're just splitting hairs. The U.S. hasn't ACTUALLY "declared war" since WWII. Korea didn't have a declaration, nor Vietnam, nor Desert Storm, nor Bosnia. But this, in the real world, is the same thing in modern day America.
C'mon! At one point is sounded like intelligent debate. The last few posts have just been mudslinging.
Take it from CV Rick. He knows what he is talking about here.
From CV's initial post:
Rick, where's the debate you so long for? This, to me, looks exactly as Ryan described; mudslinging.
If the Pres has broke the law, where is the indictment (or the conviction, to dredge up a sore, and as yet unresolved, subject from a month or so ago)?
I am sure that if the actions decreed by the vaulted members of the Senate and, to a lesser sense, the House were being ignored they would be screaming. And the media (yes, the Liberal Media) would be right there to capture every whimper and whine.
But since we have no such action stating where the Pres has made a bald-faced lie (oops, I meant "broke the law"), I am quite comfortable in believing that he has not broken the law.
Maybe he could bring a dictionary to the eventual press conference and look up the defiintion of the word "broke"...
Tom With A Dream.
That wasn't me. That was mcair.
CV Rick - My most sincere apologies for misrepresenting you and McAir. My error in not looking closely enough.