Bush Declares Exceptions to Sections of Two Bills He Signed Into Law

[tpsbmam]

Source: NY Times

President Bush asserted on Tuesday that he had the executive power to bypass several parts of two bills: a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control.

........

In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.

.......

In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.

One section gives the inspectors general a right to counsels who report directly to them. But Mr. Bush wrote in his signing statement that such lawyers would be bound to follow the legal interpretations of the politically appointed counsels at each agency.

The other section requires the White House to tell Congress what each inspector general said about the administration’s budget proposal for their offices. Such a requirement, Mr. Bush wrote, would infringe on “the president’s constitutional authority” to decide what to recommend to Congress.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/washington/15signing.html?ref=washington

[truthisfreedom]

1. Well yeah, because he's the

˙ɹǝpunoɹɐ-ɹǝʍǝɹɔs

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

10. off topic,but that "medtext" thingie is neat!

[FreepFryer]

2. What part of RULE OF LAW doesn't he get? We are TIRED of Bush the Boy King!

[mod mom]

7. Time to start a WAR CRIMES Tribunal-that's one good way to get rid of him!

[annabanana]

3. "sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference "??

Really? Now why on earth would he want to ignore THAT law?

Can I assume that there will be a loud and clear repudiation of substituting "signing statements" for LAW when we have a new President??

[NC_Nurse]

4. I can't WAIT for this asshole to vacate the Oval office. He is such a POS.

[Captain Hilts]

5. This shit is the BEST reason to vote for Obama that I can think of. nt

[Roland99]

6. If line item vetoes are unconstitutional, how can signing statements be?

[dipsydoodle]

8. I've asked that question before

and the answer was that it was supposed to all or nothing.

[MsLeopard]

9. Hey lawmakers

What do you have to say about this? Nancy? Harry? Anyone? :eyes:

[clixtox]

11. This is not the time to be joking around... N/T

[bvar22]

18. Who is joking around?

I think its worth repeating:
"Hey Lawmakers,
What do you have to say about this?
Nancy? Harry? Anyone?"

The Boy King has a 22% approval.
Dems are going to have a MANDATE in November.

Nancy and Harry don't even have to do anything in public.
All they have to do is go to the White House and take away Georgie's car keys.
Tell him:

"You know george, if you make us unhappy, things could get very, very bad for you after the election.
A lot of Democrats are screaming for Investigations, War Crimes Trials, Impeachment, and a lot of other very messy things.
Now, we wouldn't want something like that to happen to a nice boy like you.

You know, the WINNERS get to write the History.
Thats US, george.
Now, give us the car keys, go back to your little farm in Texas, and be very, very quiet....or you won't believe what happens next."

So. I'll repeat:
"Hey Lawmakers,
What do you have to say about this?
Nancy? Harry? Anyone?"

[MsLeopard]

21. I think you forgot the sarcasm

icon..... It is somewhat of a joke to expect them to do anything since they haven't seen fit to rein in the Bush mafia yet, but I'm serious in asking. They're just too content to let this criminal regime do what ever they want and I, for one, am sick of their dry powder and spiffy clean table. :hi:

[MessiahRp]

12. I think it's time to amend the constitution to eliminate the availability or legality

of signing statements all together. In that same amendment it should be made clear that no President can exert executive orders that are contrary to any laws passed by Congress or deemed as law in the Constitution itself.

Rp

[Patriought]

13. This looks worse every day

We have a president who evidently has no respect whatsoever for the law...It's more than evident he's a coward at heart.

I sure hope Obama gets to assume office after the election.

[eShirl]

14. he lacks the constitutional authority to do that

[NoodleyAppendage]

15. David Addington MUST be brought to justice. He is a traitor.

David Addington is a pox upon democracy and is a TRAITOR to America. I want this traitorous bastard with his legal hoop dancing supporting these fascist "signing statements" lined up against a wall after being found guilt of treason in a court of law. He deserves no less.

[Senator]

16. Without Impeachment, Pelosi Approves

The same is true for torture and war crimes. Tacit approval is still approval.

Only impeachment -- even a failed House vote -- is valid objection/rejection. Without it, in real time, this monarchical power is permanent.

It's never "too late" or "too divisive" to ACT to stop ongoing torture and worse. In fact, that failure is the "worse."

We must still challenge http://www.talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">our cowering candidate and the rest of the DC-Dem "leadership" to DO what they know is right.

They're continued failure forsakes Our National Soul.

---

[The Stranger]

17. Ode to the Pelosi Traitor.

You were once just the Nancy Disaster,
But you were so good, you were elevated,
To the Pelosi Traitor,
Oh, that Pelosi Traitor,

Under the spreading chestnut tree,
She sold both you and me,
There lies she and here lie we,
Under the spreading chestnut tree.

[mike_c]

20. yep-- Pelosi is complicit....

eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Weren't signing statements traditionally just that - statements, with

no weight whatsoever.

The president could say, in a signing statement, that he was signing the bill while objecting to portions of it - in effect, placing the 'blame' for the bill on congress rather than himself. * has used signing statements to directly challenge, or even overturn the intent of the bill.

In effect, using it as a line-item veto.

So, do his statements carry ANY real weight in law? Can he say "disregard this section" instead of "I object to this section"? And does congress let him do this?

[Supersedeas]

22. King George will not tolerate these attempts at silly democracy

[Zhade]

23. Why hasn't this criminal been arrested yet?

NT!