So Bush popped off another one of his "signing statements" yesterday

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Bush issued another of his controversial signing statements yesterday, after the public ceremony for the pension bill.

Here's the text :

"Today I have signed into law H.R. 4 , the 'Pension Protection Act of 2006.' . . .

"The executive branch shall construe sections 221(a) and 1632(b)(1) of the Act, which call for the submission of legislative recommendations to the Congress, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient. . . .

"Section 1634(e) purports to require the United States Trade Representative to submit to congressional committees the contents of the negotiating positions of the United States and foreign countries in certain international trade negotiations. The executive branch shall construe section 1634(e) in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs including negotiations with foreign countries, supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

So does that mean Bush won't comply with the law? Or he'll do it, but with the stipulation that it's voluntary? And if he doesn't intend to follow the law, why didn't he just veto it?

Those are questions you might well expect the press to ask, especially since the White House actually e-mailed the statement to reporters yesterday afternoon.

But alas, no. There is not a single mention, or question, about the statement in today's coverage, as far as I could tell.

[newscott]

1. By the time Constitutional experts get done parsing his words

we'll all be dead. And that is definitely *'s intent.

[bigtree]

2. kick

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1932643 B-)

[MrCoffee]

3. It's old news...

He's only done this 750-some odd times.

[spanone]

4. This truly needs to be investigated, otherwise law is bullshit.

How long can & will they get away with this?

[elehhhhna]

5. so, google up keith & lou's email addys & send it already!

[rodeodance]

39. EVERYBODY should send it already!

[LSK]

6. "the unitary executive branch "

So hes continuing to play his "fuck you congress" game...

[lonestarnot]

7. Yep the description is there. Hiel bushitler!

[MrCoffee]

8. If you haven't read Prof. Tribe's essay, read it now!

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/larry-tribe-on-aba-signing-statements.html

[Gregorian]

14. That's quite a lot of discussion.

Thanks.

I'm amazed there is so much debate. I thought it was just plain unconstitutional. It is an end run around Congress. A short circuit. I suppose there are ongoing lawsuits. But how on earth can this be continuing unstopped? I find it absolutely unAmerican.

Your link is a display of how intricate this all is. And how much attention is being paid to it. Sadly, it appears there isn't much us worker drones can do about it.

[malaise]

30. Thanks for that n/t

[ooglymoogly]

36. excellent link...thanks nt

[sinkingfeeling]

9. When will someone, anyone, show me where the term 'unitary executive'

is in the Constitution of the United States?

[MrCoffee]

10. That notion pretty well got smacked down in ACLU v. NSA

There are no hereditary kings in America.

[C_U_L8R]

12. maybe not our constitution

unitary executive = eine reich

[Az_lefty]

11. That insane fool thinks he's above the law...

this has been going on for years and our criminal Repig Congress refuses to call him on it. :grr:

fuck'em...if the president doesn't have to obey the law then neither do I.

[Critters2]

13. Key words:

"unitary executive branch". He's not going to let a little thing like the Constitutional separation of powers get in his way.

Duby, sweetie, it works like this....

Legislative branch--makes laws

Judicial branch--interprets laws

Executive branch--enforces laws

They didn't teach you this at Andover?

[G_j]

15. on Bush's signing statements (Charlie Savage)

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement - The Boston GlobeThe Boston Globe ... By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006 ... Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed. ...
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
Bush could bypass new torture ban - The Boston GlobeThe Boston Globe ... By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006 ... ''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to ...
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

American Bar Association Urges Halt to 'Signing Statements'Published on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 by the Boston Globe ... Bush has used signing statement to challenge more than 800 laws -- more than all previous ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0809-08.htm

Media Matters - Media continue to ignore Boston Globe reporter's ...Major media outlets have largely ignored reports by The Boston Globe 's Charles ... quietly filed a signing statement explaining "that he did not feel ...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020011

Bush Defies Hundreds of LawsThe Boston Globe. Sunday 30 April 2006 ... After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia ...
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043006Y.shtml

Bush Prepares to Bypass New Torture BanThe Boston Globe. Wednesday 04 January 2005. Waiver right is reserved. ... After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a "signing statement" - an ...
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010406A.shtml

Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston GlobeInstead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about ... After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did ...
www.newscloud.com/redir/59522/


from: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22signing+statement%22+Boston+Globe&spell=1

[MrCoffee]

16. Charlie Savage should get a freakin' medal for his work on this.

[G_j]

17. agreed, even most of Congress was completely unaware of this

until Savage wrote his original article

also, there was a great interview with him on NPR's "Fresh Air" this week.

[Supersedeas]

18. sad, that merely doing the job of a journalist deserves a metal--where are

the cable journalists???

[alfredo]

19. It's all bullshit. Congress gets to look like it is helping

the working man, knowing all along that bush will submit a signing statement. The public hears about what congress did for them, but not what bush did.

It's a scam. The Republican congress can pass these laws, knowing their precious corporatist and ruling class will be protected by bush's signing statements.

[MrCoffee]

20. These are why Chimpy only vetoed once.

[alfredo]

21. Yep, the Republican congress gets to show it "cares" without

actually doing anything for the American people. It's kind of like the old Mutt and Jeff technique, but congress is acting the good guy and the president the "hidden" bad guy.

Usually the bad guy is the subordinate and the good guy the superior.

[bobthedrummer]

22. As if the EO's weren't deceptively vague enough so that he could "decide"

for US-check out section 4.3 of this amendment to a previous one--it is about Special Access Programs, legalistic form is so dear to fascists

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. Thanks

[snappyturtle]

24. K&R even tried to do it twice....oops!

If you can't say anything else for the repukes I think most would agree that they are the most organized group at totally destroying this country as effectively as if they had bombed us back to the Mayflower! Will they ever quit? Destroy,destroy,destroy,destroy ad infinitum.

[IChing]

25. The other signing statement that could happen,,,,,,,,, kick

We have a dictator now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1937816&mesg_id=1937816

[truth2power]

32. Check out the date on that link...April 1. n/t

[emald]

26. when will we return to the rule of law???

[Toots]

27. He is the "Unitary Executive" and being so can do anything he wishes

You have a problem with that? Sheesh :crazy:

[Igel]

29. He's in charge of the "unitary executive", at best. n/t

[sendero]

28. It is Congress..

... that is asleep at the wheel. These signing statements ARE NOTHING MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH's OPINION. They carry no force of law whatsoever.

His signing statement DOES NOT IN ANY WAY PRECLUDE HIS DUTY TO FOLLOW THE ACTUAL LAW, the real meaning of which will eventually be arbitrated by the COURTS.

[Joe Bacon]

31. How much longer will Bush have a blank check?

Amazing how he can do whatever he wants and nobody will stand up to him. The Media worships the ground he walks on, the Preachers brainwash their flocks into worshipping him and anyone who even thinks of challenging him is supressed by Bush's SS.

[Hamlette]

33. Bush has effectively given himself a line item veto without the bad press

hasn't he? Too bad we don't have any watchdogs. The media and Congress are MIA.

[Uncle Joe]

34. "And if he doesn't intend to follow the law, why didn't he just veto it?"

He is a coward and is deeply afraid of debate, does not have the strength of his own convictions (if he has any of those)and because working with the congress within the framework of the Constitution, truly is hard work.

[Tigress DEM]

35. Basically if any Corp. who is paying to keep *ushtool in power object...

*ushtool can declare it in the "national interests" to let them dive out on their pension committments to the little guys while keeping the CEO's pensions intact.

[rodeodance]

37. so, bush has challenged the press.

Those are questions you might well expect the press to ask, especially since the White House actually e-mailed the statement to reporters yesterday afternoon.

But alas, no. There is not a single mention, or question, about the statement in today's coverage, as far as I could tell.

[sutz12]

38. WTF is a "Unitary Executive Branch"?

That term :scared: me.

[rodeodance]

40. "The White Palace" is the headline. yappa dappa doo!

The White Palace

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 18, 2006; 12:56 PM

It's not just virulent Bush-haters who think the president has been acting like he's the king -- increasingly, it's also the judicial branch.

Yesterday's rebuke of the White House's assertion of nearly unlimited executive power in a time of war came from U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who struck down President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program as both illegal and unconstitutional.

White House Briefing Permalinks

* Trying to Spin the Truth Away
* Bush Bubble Alive and Well
* Another 'Mission Accomplished' Moment?
* Did Cheney Go Too Far?
* The Anti-Bush Movement


That, of course, comes hard on the heels of the June 29 Supreme Court decision that struck down Bush's tribunals for terror suspects and reasserted the nation's adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

Yesterday's decision is at a much lower judicial level. The ruling is on hold for now, and the White House is adamant that it will succeed in getting it reversed.

[alfredo]

41. Unitary Excutive = Tyranny

Good article on bush's abuse of power

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html