Are you watching the ABA presentation on sgning statements?

[napi21]

They are presenting the results of the 11 member panel that studied Presidential signing statements, and have determined that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! He DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ignore the law!

It's on cspan1 now.

[snappyturtle]

1. Yes I'm watching! Isn't it wonderful? nt

[msongs]

2. "he" will ignore the law until somebody stops him -

as all criminals do, they will repeat their crimes until somebody stops him. the republicans as a party do not have the integrity to stop him, the democrats do not have the power to stop him, and the democrats certainly are not using the appropriate language to sway public opinion. a tyrant is a tyrant, get itMs Pelosi and Mr. Reid?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[kentuck]

4. Stop me before I sign again...

He's a criminal with a criminal mind.

[annabanana]

3. Yes. We are in the midst of a genuine Constitutional Crisis.

gee.. I wonder if it'll make the "news"?

For the future of our country . . .THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT STORY

on edit: it is time to hound corpomedia to give this story some coverage

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111

[HereSince1628]

5. Sad sigh, it's an tyranny enabling Congress that must deal with it.

This Congress will provide Bush with whatever he wants even forgiveness and retroactive permission usurp the constitution.

[theHandpuppet]

19. If we expect the Dems on the Hill to do anything about this...

Guess again. Sure, they have grounds. Will they actually do anything about it? Of course not.

[Bandit]

55. What would you have them do?

About the only thing within their power is to hold a news conference and who is going to pay attention to that when there is a good war to watch? :shrug: I think if they just start applying pressure gradually and at every opportunity eventually the public will hear about it. I don't know anything else they can do, do you?

[Poll_Blind]

6. K&R!

PB

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Watching! Already thinking of the echo machine's talking points

I wonder if they got copies of the Task Force Report prior to this.

[Dinger]

8. This Is VERY Signifigant! - Well Worth Watching

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.cs...


Presidential signing statements & separation of powers.
Michael Greco saying bu$hCo in particular have attacked the Constitution, and it needs protection.
A diverse talk force has done an investigation and has made recommendations to protect the Constitution, Mr. Greco said that he will recommend to the ABA House of Delegates that they adopt the findings of this task force and ABA policy.
Mr. Greco is saying that * can't pick and choose which laws he will follow (Actually, he didn't say * specifically, but it seems clear that is who he means). He is also saying that using signing statements in place of a veto is a violation of the Constitution . . . .



I'm watching . . . I'll keep you posted as best I can. I'm not too good at summarizing, but I'll try. . .



Folks, this looks GOOD!

[lumpy]

32. Thank you Dinger, for your input.

By all rights, Bush should be brought down for his illegal activities.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. ITS IS NOT BUSH'S FAULT ALREADY!

Come on, folks, ease up on the guy.
After all, here is a president who gets his intel data from Darth Cheney; his foreign affairs info from Condi Rice, his legal advice from Alberto Gonzales; his war advice from Uncle Donnie Rummie.

Of course he will take the wrong path. With advice like that, I am surprised that he can tie his tie on properly. and put the right cowboy boot on the right foot.



Of course, there is the argument that Bush selected the bozos upon whose advice he relies. but that is another issue.

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. Best response: The buck stops at the pen of the Pres. n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Q&A - Discrepancy between the 800 they say and the Boston

Globe's report of 750.

A: The number changes.

LOL!

[napi21]

11. There were 807 signing statements as of 7/11/06!!!!!

Most agreegious was on the detainee treatment act!

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Bringing up the torture statement memo

Also, signing state after the bill was signed, that a report on search and seizure in Patriot Act will NOT be forthcoming to Congress.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. ABA has to vote on the report next week

"We HOPE the administration and Congress will give this serious consideration"

[Skidmore]

15. As I noted on the other thread re: this press conference:

Sonnett's presentation led to a couple of conclusions by me about *'s avoidance of the veto as a tool of governance as

1) having been intentional to allow him to usurp power through the signing statements
2) allowing him to put Congress on record for passing laws laced with Rovian landmines to be triggered for political purposes later.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Yup! n/t

[napi21]

Signing stmts have become the Mantra of this Admin!

They question EVERYTHING that encroaches on their belief in th4e unitary power of the executive branch!

[napi21]

18. Signing stmts have become the Mantra of this Admin!

They question EVERYTHING that encroaches on their belief in th4e unitary power of the executive branch!

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. Bringing up SCOTUS decision on Pres signing statements

President has two choices: Either sign a bill in it's entirety OR veto it.

Some bozo is trying to put forth that the signing statements are just "PR" statements and don't matter.

Greco saying that until Globe piece, no one knew the magnitude of the signing statements. The sheer number and the use to which President is putting them to use is vastly different from what has gone on in the past.

[Skidmore]

20. * used signing statements more than every other President

in US history COMBINED. Can we say "coup d'etat" yet?

[serryjw]

65. Correction******

* used signing statements MORE than 42 previous presidents COMBINED!

[AspenRose]

21. "Ignoring his oath of office"

Well, the Constitution is "just a goddammed piece of paper," right? :sarcasm:

[Skidmore]

22. This press conference isn't happening in that alternate universe at

FR....

Not a peep over there. Crickets are chirping and tumbleweeds scurry by in a lonesome wind.

[AspenRose]

25. Of course not...who's going to listen to a bunch of lawyers?

:sarcasm:

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. WOW!!! President violated his oath of office if he signs a bill

the he believes is unconstitutional. (President signs, then adds his signing statement saying it's unconstitutional...no can do Mr. President!)

[Skidmore]

26. Impeach. Impeach. Impeach.

And if congress doesn't do it, kick the enablers out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. Kicking them out is about our only hope at this point

No way the rubber stampers are going to do what they should have been doing all along!

[tbyg52]

69. Unconstitutional?

Do any of the signing statements actually say that? I though they just said, basically, that he would do what he wants, law or no law.

[napi21]

24. President is violating his oath of office!

If he believes a law is in violation of the constitution, he is bound by his own oath of office to vetoe that bill!

[Dinger]

27. What Is A Signing Statement Exactly? (Please Keep It Simple : )

I'm not a lawyer:)

[Skidmore]

31. It's a statement attached to a bill by a president after signing

the bill saying what reservations that president has about the legislation. * uses it to say he won't comply with the law he has signed--theoretically making it okay (in his wee little pea brain) for him to break the law.

[napi21]

33. When the Prez signs a bill into law, he, at the same time, writes

an accompanying statement stating what part r parts of that law he disagrees with and also states that he will not enforce that part!

[Sydnie]

40. That's what the blivet** has done with it but

if you go back and read those by Clinton or even earlier Presidents, that is not what they did. They made statements about the legislation, most often in support of the law they are signing, the process or changes that happened along the way to the final draft and areas that might need even further attention for more reaching consideration.

blivet** has turned this into an "executive privilege", with intent to ignore or change the way the law effects the office of the President, rather than commentary.

edited to add - you can look at his statments (as well as Clintons) here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/search.html put signing statements in the search box, choose a date and click search.

[treestar]

58. Thank you for that information to use against the argument

"Clinton did it."

Most bills nowadays are just a start as to the tons of regulations that will later be written. Mabye Clinton's signing statements were just guidance about what those regulations might be.

[Norquist Nemesis]

28. Oh peachy! Fein's working with Specter "to draft a bill"

that allows Congress to sue the President over Presidential signing statements.

Geez, he'll just add a signing statement saying it's unconstitutional. (Or, it will take two years to get through Congress just in time for a Democrat to be choked by Congressional "oversight".) :grr:

[datasuspect]

29. BILL CLINTON DID THIS WORSE!!!!!!1111

there is nothing hugh about what Our Great Christain LEader is dooing.

praise JAYSUS!!!!!!

[Dinger]

34. Someone Should Ask About Impeachment

Since they are asking questions. I'm waiting . . . . . . . . . C'mon, somebody!

[napi21]

35. Even if Congress is AFRAID to uphold their responsibility

of oversight, THEY HAVE TO DO IT!

[AndyA]

52. THEY HAVE TO DO IT!

That's the key statement. It is NOT AN OPTION for Congress to decide whether or not to uphold the Constitution, it is a requirement. If they do not, they are all complicit in the illegal activity, and as such are equally responsible.

IMPEACH! It's the only option at this point.

[napi21]

36. Even if Congress is AFRAID to uphold their responsibility

of oversight, THEY HAVE TO DO IT!

[AspenRose]

37. Stephen Saltzburg....

:yourock:

[Dinger]

38. Kicking Again, To Keep This One Going ! (nt)

[The Witch]

39. Just got to work... WOW!!!!!! k&r

[Norquist Nemesis]

41. "Administration has not been forthcoming"

wow! shocking!

[DemReadingDU]

42. Darn, I just tuned in, Hope C-Span replays this later

Thanks to everyone for posting during the presentation

[Norquist Nemesis]

43. Folks, we have a serious Constitutional crisis on our hands

They are saying the Task Force's Recommendation need immediate attention. Hope the ABA passes the report without any changes or taking any teeth out of it.

[Skidmore]

44. We need to get Dobbs and KO to get this to their viewers

and Cafferty too. AND then we need to start kicking Congressional tush in DC and when they surface for another one of their endless "breaks."

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. ASAP!

www.abanet.org

Wonder if they have the TF report online? (off to check!)

[Norquist Nemesis]

49. Link to Task Force Report and Media Kit

http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/

It's all there for forward on to Dobbs, KO, AND your Senators/Congresscritter.

[chill_wind]

68. Very valuable. Thank you. nt

[chill_wind]

67. Dobbs ran it tonite. Dry as toast, but he did. nt

[Norquist Nemesis]

45. Wald: It's going to be difficult to find party with standing

Administration hasn't been forthcoming in providing information, documents, or even the signing statements to Congress. Attorney General not providing requested information to Congress.

[YvonneCa]

46. This will matter..it's the ABA...

...premier legal organization of our country. It's taking baby steps, but it takes that to educate the American people and bring them along. This is EXCELLENT! E-mail C-SPAN and request them to re-air this OFTEN. :patriot:

[The Witch]

47. Final thought: GET UP OFF YOUR ASSES, MEDIA :-)

:woohoo: :woohoo:

Who'da thunk lawyers would be our knights in shining armor!! :)

[Dinger]

56. I Liked How In The Final Statement The Media Was Told To Do Their Job

:headbang:

[trof]

50. Saw the whole thing. Now the question is:

Does this story have legs?
CNN's "assets" are all in Syria and Lebanon this morning.
Not a word about the ABA press conference yet.
Check the evening news.

ABA has just said that the president has violated the constitution that he swore to uphold and defend.
This would seem to call for impeachment.
A trial in the senate to determine if he has, in fact, violated his oath of office.
Stay tuned and write your reps.

[napi21]

53. In addition to writing your reps, we should also email the news

chanels.

Here is a link that lists direct links to all of them!

http://www.c-span.org/resources/media.asp

[YvonneCa]

59. Did so while watching...

...this. Thanked C-span and requested MANY repeats for this program. Also requested coverage by CNN, MSNBC and NBC.

[napi21]

51. Here is a link to the ABA report.

http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf

It's 34 pages long, so I haven't had time to read it all, but I thought you might be interested in reading it too.

[Dinger]

57. Thanks For Posting This. Interesting Reading - Really!

I will make an attempt at a letterto the editor. See what happens. I can write, but I am SLOW.

[BrotherBuzz]

54. I gather the ABA doesn't buy John Yoo's circular logic

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006


Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

<more>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/02/DDG5TG01E31.DTL

[chill_wind]

63. Good stuff. Thnx! nt

[smacky44]

60. OK, but will "we the people" do about it?

What can we do about it?

[spanone]

61. Watch while our fearless leader IGNORES the ABA

just like he did when the United Nations told him to close down Guantanamo.

He takes direction from no one except mr. cheney.

So why don't they censure Mr. Gonzales? Our attoney general is bad news for our precious Constitution.

[chill_wind]

62. Ogletree to Specter: *"I think not only can you, I think you must." *

"But Charles Ogletree, a Harvard Law School professor who is a member of the aba task force, gave different advice. "So you think we could draft a statute, take the president to court?" Specter asked him. "I think not only can you, I think you must," Ogletree replied."


OF COURSE we can expect Sen Stonewall Specter not to want to do this. The sense is that he is asking only just how much of a legal corner is he finally finding himelf in.

In related editorial piece and discussion on the ABA task force here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2408820&mesg_id=2408820


Then the question becomes, what remedy do we have against Sen Specter if he continues to subvert and fails to act on the pronouncements by this legal body?

And what about the rest of the lawyers in Congress? They cannot hide or feign any further serious confusion about what is being said by the ABA task force about this matter.

What are the options of The People of the United States and our own legal bodies to force or penalize specifically assigned and responsible judiciary members in Congress to act? impeach? recall? sue?

Can the ABA disbar them? Anything? Anybody??

[magellan]

64. Nothing will come of this

Specter will lead the charge, then turn around and piss all over himself when the moment comes to take action, and it'll be buried.

Congress has proved time and time again that it doesn't have the ethical or moral fortitude to uphold their oath of office and deal with this criminal cabal...because most of them are compromised by association with BushCo themselves. It's easier for them to sneer and fling partisan soundbytes at the corporate media ("Clinton did the same thing") than behave like they belong where they are.

Here we know it, but most average Americans would never suspect how deep in doo-doo this country really is.

[faithnotgreed]

66. KICKING