Bush Breaks The Law (How Many Times Are We Up To?)
Before reading any further, I urge you to sit comfortably, have no sharp or metallic objects within easy reach, and be ready to head for the liquor cabinet as soon as you're done reading.
Ready?
Congress cannot present a bill to the president until both houses have agreed to its contents. The bill cannot be changed by the president, as he does not have the Constitutional power to create laws.
I have never heard of such blatent disregard for the Constitution. He flings his snot at the very foundation of our country and yet I still hear a whole bunch of happy little idiots singing his praises. How is that possible? How can they see this kind of thing and support such a creature?
WHERE ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES?
Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. They have allowed this man (and his powerhungry dickhead friends) to do his own little happy dance on the bones of our founding fathers and cheer him on for more. SHAME ON YOU.
Ready?
When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers....
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." 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.
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."
Congress cannot present a bill to the president until both houses have agreed to its contents. The bill cannot be changed by the president, as he does not have the Constitutional power to create laws.
I have never heard of such blatent disregard for the Constitution. He flings his snot at the very foundation of our country and yet I still hear a whole bunch of happy little idiots singing his praises. How is that possible? How can they see this kind of thing and support such a creature?
WHERE ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES?
Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. They have allowed this man (and his powerhungry dickhead friends) to do his own little happy dance on the bones of our founding fathers and cheer him on for more. SHAME ON YOU.
by MG at 10:02 PM
12 Comments:
Not to mention the bones of our current soldiers who are dying for...What?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!(Country)
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!(Constitution)
-Talking Heads
And you may say to yourself, "My God... What have I done?"
I've decided to create an addendum saying I can disregard drug prohibition, in the interests of the war against bullshit.
This is great! Laws are so much easier when you just ignore the ones you don't like.
Feel comfortable America?
America is a broken plaything of the Elite.
I would suggest learning a martial art to prepare for the feudal times.
Moxiegrrrl said...
WHERE ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES?
They bounced
Chimpy really does think he's a dictator. He again thumbs his nose at Congress with a signing statement, just like he did with the McCain Torture Bill, and still our P-whipped legislature continues to be afraid to even censure the machiavelli wannabe for declaring himself above the law when it comes to warrantless spying on Americans?
F*ck censure, they need to hurry up and impeach this asshole.
Hello MoxieGrrrl.
Congratulations on being posted on the Air Force website you mentioned.
In reference to your post about President Bush breaking the law, I think I have a slight disagreement with your theme. However, I also think I understand your frustration. In your post, you mention that President Bush signed the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. However, when he signed it, he added the addendum 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.’"
Now the title of your post states “Bush Breaks The Law.” I do not think this is accurate. Please allow me to explain. In your fifth paragraph, you state “Congress cannot present a bill to the president until both houses have agreed to its contents. The bill cannot be changed by the president, as he does not have the Constitutional power to create laws.” To the best of my knowledge, you are correct. This appears to be exactly what the constitution of the United States says. However, this along with the addendum of Bush’s does not mean that there has been a violation of law. I will try to use an example to explain what I mean.
Let us say that MoxieGrrrl and TM decide to enter into a contract. The terms of the contract are the TM will do A, B, and C. MoxieGrrrl will do D and E, and pay $$$ to TM. On Friday, the contract has been drawn up, and is ready to be signed. First, MoxieGrrrl signs the contract. Then she passes the contract to TM to sign. TM signs the contract, but after he does, he adds a handwritten statement that he may not do ‘C’ if certain things change. The question is, what do we have here? Do we have a contract? Do we have a violation of the contract? My belief is we probably do have a contract. Especially if MoxieGrrrl and TM both end up fulfilling their side of the contract. Only if TM does not fulfill his side of the contract do we have a potential violation of the contract.
Let us say that TM does A, B, and C, just as the contract says. And MoxieGrrrl does D and E, and pays TM $$$, as agreed in the contract. Does the fact that TM hand wrote in an addendum that said he reserved the right not to do ‘C’ if certain things changed in any way affect the fact that both parties have fulfilled their contract? No, it does not. This is a fulfilled contract. Despite the fact that TM wrote that he reserves the right to not fulfill the contract, nonetheless, he has fulfilled the contract.
Now let us assume that the original situation is the same, except that in this case, for whatever reason, TM says that certain things have changed, and that he will not fulfill the ‘C’ portion of the contract. He will do A and B, but not C. At this point, what is MoxieGrrrl to do? She can try to convince TM to do ‘C’. Let us say that TM refuses. At this point, MoxieGrrrl can take TM to court. Simplifying things GREATLY, the judge may say two things. One, he may say that the fact that TM added the addendum showed that there was never a meeting of the minds, and hence no contract. If there is no contract, then the fact that TM has not done ‘C’ is irrelevant. (Keep in mind that this is very much a simplification of things. But seeing as my posts already have an unfortunate tendency to bloat, I REALLY don’t want to get into all of the minutiae of contract law.) If there is no contract, then MoxieGrrrl and TM are back to square one.
However, let us say that the judge thinks that there was a contract. In addition, he is not impressed by the addendum that TM added. The judge rules that TM must perform the ‘C’ that he is contractually obligated to do, or be liable to MoxieGrrrl for either damages or specific performance. In this case, TM had better comply, or he will suffer the consequences.
This is the situation I think Congress and the President are in. There was a bill that Congress sent to the President. He signed it, but added this addendum. I believe that the President and Congress are in the same situation that MoxieGrrrl and TM had in the above scenario. If President Bush never actually “withhold(s) the information” that the law states he must provide to Congress, then no violation of the law has occurred. However, if President Bush does withhold this information, then we have a potential legal issue. And then I suspect that this could be handled in the courts as illustrated above. An alternative is that this could be handled in Congress by other methods, up to and including impeachment, should it come to that.
To repeat myself, I see that this addendum could possibly cause some future issues if Congress perceives that President Bush has not fulfilled his duties as they interpret them. However, if he does fulfill them as they interpret them, then there is no problem. The mere fact that President Bush added this addendum does not automatically mean that a violation of law has occurred.
Very respectfully,
TM
Pardon? Since when did Consitutional law become the same as contract law? Did I miss another meeting?
A bill sent by Congress to the President to be signed into law isn't quite the same as a contract between Bubba and Billy Bob about sellin' chickens.
And it shouldn't. There's an established and elegant system for signing into law / vetoing / overturning vetos. Nobody (and particularly a President) in that process should be allowed to scribble "screw this!" in the margins after the fact.
TM does have a point. Bush hasn't actually broken the law (in this case) yet. He's just pre-emptively announced that he feels he has the right to break the law. There is a difference.
Of course, it also depends on how he presented that statement. TM's point (and my agreement with it) is based on the assumption that this is just a statement...a side-note, a PostIt note about the bill, or something similar. The article doesn't make it clear whether that is the case, or if Bush is trying to make this an actual addendum and part of the bill (the article alternately uses the terms "addendum" and "statement"). If that's the case, then Bush indeed has broken the law in this instance by trying to re-write a bill passed by Congress.
And of course, even if it is just a statement, it proves once again that Bush thinks he's above the law. And it's a pretty damn good bet that he will refuse to abide by this law, since he just announced that he had no intention of following it.
So if Bush is thinking he is above the law, can we preemptively arrest him, try him and hang him from the highest rafters?
I agree, A) 'Bush declares himself the right to supercede the law' would be more appropriate than B) 'Bush breaks the law'.
Though both are reprehensible, I hope I'm not the only one who finds B less offensive. B could be 'oops my bad', A is 'I'll break the law whenever I say I need to break it'.
BTW, I like this definition for reprehensible...
rep·re·hen·si·ble [rèppri hénssəb’l]
adj
deserving to be censured: highly unacceptable and deserving censure
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
The only thing more astounding than our neo-Nero declaring himself to be the neo-Augustus, is the fact that there are so many friggin idiots who either support him or don't care.
The beginning of the end of democracy if this stands.
Hello Atrocious.
You are right. Constitutional law is not literally the same is contract law. I was using an analogy to make a point. Allow me to clarify my position.
Bush has not broken the law.
Congress sent him a bill. Bush signed it. The bill is now the law of the land. After the bill was signed, “the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. Bush has still not broken the law. The law is only broken if in the future, Bush violates the law in question.
Very respectfully,
TM
Post a Comment
<< Home