And that sez to me, they have no intention of losing the White House...
Posted by Sharon at October 6, 2006 05:38 AMWho has standing to sue about these singning statements? How can they be challenged in court?
Posted by Emily at October 6, 2006 05:44 AMa presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional.
well, why should those bar-passing eggheads get to decide what's constitutional?
Posted by jay west, proven liar at October 6, 2006 06:01 AMAnd what the hell is this use of the term "unitary executive branch" anyway? I was taught that it was the "executive branch" of the three, coequal branches of government. I know that Bush believes that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, or at least people accept it as truth. Is this what has happened with the office of the president?
Posted by Via at October 6, 2006 06:03 AMWho are the scholars expert in the subject of signing statements and their use, past and present?
Posted by gtash at October 6, 2006 06:03 AMSee wikipedia, gtash.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 6, 2006 06:15 AMSharon, what it says to me is that the White House has no intention of losing Congress... you see, the entire jist of the report cited depends 100%, well, maybe 85%, on the GOP (or GROP) controlling majority in Congress. It is the reason that, even with polls showing big Dem gains and Bush in the 30%'s, that no guarantee of a Dem takeover can be made. The people behind Bush have no intention, not even a vision of, allowing theselves to be out of power. Given the insane tunnel vision they've shown on Iraq, I doubt they have even a shred of worry about losing a house of Congress. If you know there is a way to guarantee that doesn't happen........why worry. Further, if you know that the LIEberman's of the world are on your side, worry even less.
Posted by T2 at October 6, 2006 06:33 AMHe doesn't understand the difference between government and running a corporation (into the ground). He thinks they're the same thing.
CEO (president) and Board of Directors (Congress).
Of course he doesn't want any checks and balances, He was elected CEO of the US. This means he thinks he do as he wants.
That's why he can award contracts to friends and appoint buddies to the positions he wants...no questions asked.
With that thinking, we as shareholders of the US should be able to sue for malfeasance to the tune of recovering all the money wasted.
Posted by Alex at October 6, 2006 06:48 AMThis is something I mentioned yesterday in a previous comment.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/politicalupdates/minutemen/prweb399505.htm
Minutemen Book Prompts Calls for Congressional Investigation
Authors of upcoming book “Minutemen” uncover White House efforts to create a regulatory agency with Mexico and Canada while keeping Congress in the dark. Jerome Corsi to announce findings while appearing with Rep. Tancredo on national radio on Thursday.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) June 15, 2006 -- Revelations in an upcoming book by the founder of the Minuteman Project and the co-author of “Unfit for Command” may result in a Congressional investigation of the White House, this according to the authors. At issue are the Bush Administration's secretive efforts to establish a North American regulatory agency with Mexico and Canada.
“Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders” (World Ahead Publishing; hardcover: $25.95; ISBN 0977898415) is authored by Jim Gilchrist and Jerome R. Corsi and scheduled for nationwide release on July 25. But shocking information contained in the book is already causing concern among lawmakers who are worried that the Bush Administration is ceding America's border sovereignty to a North American trans-national bureaucracy without their approval.
While researching their highly anticipated book on illegal immigration, the authors uncovered evidence suggesting that the Bush Administration established an office in the Department of Commerce to collaborate on regulation with the Mexican and Canadian governments and without oversight from Congress. Corsi is scheduled to join Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on the nationally syndicated G. Gordon Liddy Show on Thursday as he calls upon Congress to investigate this previously secret initiative.
The office in question is tasked with implementing the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a tri-lateral accord signed last year by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. According to the State Department's website, the SPP is intended to “protect North America from external threats…implement a border-facilitation strategy…pursue regulatory cooperation…and (enhance) environmental stewardship.”
“The SPP was never authorized by Congress, and no congressional committee has oversight of the SPP working groups,” claims Corsi, whose 2004 book “Unfit for Command” helped defeat John Kerry’s presidential bid. “The Administration has also refused to disclose the results of those working groups. It seems like President Bush doesn't want Americans to know that a North American version of the European Union is being created right under their nose, and without congressional approval.”
“Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders” is a selection of the month for the American Compass Book Club, and an alternate selection for the Conservative Book Club, History Book Club, and Military Book Club. It will be available in bookstores nationwide in late July.
Posted by Alex at October 6, 2006 06:57 AMIt is interesting to take a look back, to this week in 2004. Kerry and Bush had had their first debate, you remember, when Bush didn't think he was on camera and scowled, figeted, and generally behaved like a spoiled brat the whole show. Kerry was awarded a KO. Also that week, Charles Duelfer, the Bush Iraq WMD search captain, reported back that no, he couldn't find any WMD in Iraq and no signs of any having been there. This blew away the Bush reason for invasion, and the "bring Democracy to Iraq" reason was trotted out. Two years later and Bush is still acting the Spoiled Brat role, an idiot GOP senator is still looking for WMD, and most sadly, Bush is still president. But, Iraq did have elections, and for the most part, things are doing really well over there. Plenty of oil revenue, water, sewage and electricity at all-time highs, peaceful co-existance between centuries old rivals, and most importantly, our GI's are almost all home....whoops, slipped into the Twilight Zone for a second.
Posted by T2 at October 6, 2006 07:00 AMI've been following this closely since it came up on the radar screen earlier in the year. JB's site is certainly one of the forerunners in analysis and anyone who hasn't gone there and read the posts as well as the arguments in the comment section is in for the read of a lifetime. The ABA's (American Bar Association) committe that was formed to review the signing statements was on CSPAN early summer with their position and it was a damning one for the WH. As to the question above as to who these guys are, go to the site and you'll find it is inhabited by some of the finest legal as well as Constitutional legal minds that we have in this country.
Thanks SD for bringing this back on the radar screen. Of the many many concerns we all should have, again the WH dismisses the "little guy" by directing the people who must perform under these new laws, to break these laws by following the President's versions.
The signing statements slam the door on Congress's ability to debate and refine a law which the Exec branch takes exception to because unlike an Exec veto where the bill is then tossed back in the laps of Congress to rework, instead the law stands but the Pres gives himself a get out of jail card, literally.
Posted by mainsailset at October 6, 2006 07:01 AMBush has been consistently testing his checks. Nearly every place he has pushed a limit, the check has proved ineffective. Perhaps the most glaring example in the last few days is the Court of Appeals stay of Judge Taylor's NSA unconstitutional wiretaping order. The Court chose to protect the President's raw power rather that the freedoms of the people. One would think that a Court checking an unconstitutional power grab would maintain the stay when there exists a legal method (FISA) of accomplishing the same goal of evesdropping on terrorists. Instead, the Court buckled because it may be that those particular judges are in agreement with the evolution to a new form of government. For whatever reason, that check failed and Bush learned that another boundary could be crossed.
Testing has been systematic and careful. At some point soon, we can expect the President to do something dramatic towards taking dictatorial power. He will do something that is clearly "over the line" as another test. Perhaps he will do some act that dramatically represses free speech that most people would consider be clearly a proper exercise of the First Amendment. He must continue to expand the exercise of his power to get us more used to being run by a dictator. He has to complete the process in time for the failure of the 2006 election so he can remain in power.
Posted by Nobody at October 6, 2006 08:13 AMNobody, I beg to differ. He has not only crossed that line but flaunted it in our faces; ie, look at his initial response in front of camera regarding the NSA warrantless wiretaps. His entire term has been one after another over the top examples of dramatic repression of civil rights and just plain immoral behavior.
Posted by mainsailset at October 6, 2006 08:46 AM"His entire term has been one after another over the top examples of dramatic repression of civil rights and just plain immoral behavior."
mainsailset,
Amoral is the new black for the GOP.
I understand someone testing to see if they can get a little more power, but the pliant branches are bending a little too much to accomodate instead of providing the safeguards they're supposed to.
But all three branches of government display a willful ignorance of what government is and they apply their failures as business people to their elected positions.
In other words, they fail the Constitution Test we all had in high school.
Ultimately though, it's the people in this country that bear the blame for willful ignorance and repeatedly sending the people back after elections.
Posted by Alex at October 6, 2006 09:10 AMAlex. Amen
Posted by mainsailset at October 6, 2006 09:43 AMI second mainsailset Amen, Alex, as well an another Amen to what a poster of an Spanish Website had to say at the end of his contribution,
“…All of this, instead of having promoted an impeachment against Bush for having lied, and clearly lied, to the Congress of his country and, accordingly, to the entire North-American people, as well as to the Security Counsel of the UN. And repeatedly. It is a phenomenon that’s repeated throughout history: look for an outside enemy to try to get internal support. The wonderful North-American people do not deserve a president like Bush, but it is they who have the word. And the vote.”
Yeah, with the last (ahem) re-election, the task of those of us who’ve always tried to keep things in their proper perspective—sorry pal, but it is not the “Americans” who’ve done this or that, it is this or that namely particular individual (and his or her goons) where fingers should be pointed and words should apply.
Well, with the latest poll figures it appears that a good number of “the people” are starting to see the light. I hope with all my being that, come November, those who try the “perspective” angle won’t find themselves being told, over and over again, what any discerning soul understands, but tries to defuse when things go haywire: Indeed, that “it is they who have the word. And the vote.”
PAZ
If the Dems can't gain control of at least one branch, then we'll know that we in fact have the Whig Party running, and we'll know what to do then.
Posted by Alex at October 6, 2006 11:25 AM