This BS has got to stop, make this f**ker veto the bills....

[Postman]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/v-pfriendly/story/485561p-408789c.html

signs a bill passed by Congress and then issues a signing statement saying it doesn't apply.....

This is dictatorship.....

Make this fuc*er veto the bills....

[aquart]

1. This is an ATTEMPT at dictatorship.

We've had the Congress ONE DAY. Impatient much? We waited 6 years. How about letting our people get thru the first week?

[niceypoo]

2. I am sure that Bush trying to illegally exempt himself from all laws will be dealt with shortly

[bdamomma]

9. that is why Bush is assembling all his attorneys around him

he is protecting himself.

[blondeatlast]

3. Amen, This ought to be the first order of business on a already overburdened agenda. nt

[Atman]

4. I think the MOST IMPORTANT legislation for the dems is to STOP THEM

Write legislation that states all Bush signing statements will be reviewed or outright repealed, null and void. Including the one Bush puts at the bottom of that bill claiming he'll ignore it. I do believe these signing statements are one of the most dangerous things to come out of this administration (not that Bush invented them, he's just figured out how to use them to gain dictatorial powers).

.

[salin]

5. now that is a piece of legislation that I would *love* to see.

how to get the repubs to vote for it? Keep reminding them that given the last elections - it is increasingly likely that the next president with this power will be a Democrat. Better yet - to scare them into acting - remind them that the next president with this power very well might be a Democrat named Clinton. That would make such a bill get bipartisan support.

[blondeatlast]

8. Added advantage: it puts any of the Bush supporters left in congress

in the position of having to defend themselves to the constituents over a vastly unpopular practice.

It's good, good, good, to play offense!

[Ian_rd]

6. No shit. Is it really that hard?

How about a Congressional resolution stating that signing statements shall not be used to modify the meaning of a law or declare that parts or all of it do not apply to the Executive. Make the chimp motherfucker put a signing statement on THAT and we'll see how it goes down with the public.

Or does Congress just not give a shit that the Executive considers them meaningless?

[kentuck]

7. But what good would it do...?

If he simply vetoed the bills anyway? Wouldn't that just be a waste of time? :sarcasm:

[dipsydoodle]

10. History is repeating itself

The emergency regulations of 28 February,1933, gave the Gestapo complete freedom to impose "protective custody" (Schutzhaft) and to prevent undesirable political activities. When Goering was made Prime Minister of Prussia on 11 April1933, the Gestapo was separated entirely from the overall police structure, and the First Gestapo Law, of 26 April 1933, officially gave Diels the authority of an independent state political police commissioner. The Second Gestapo Law, of 30 November1933, made Goering head of the political police and Diels directly responsible to him. The secret police now became officially known as the Gestapo; in 1934, a "Jewish Section" was set up.
http://www.history-of-the-holocaust.org/LIBARC/LEXICON/LexEntry/Gestapo.html

"The Gestapo was able to listen to any phone call or open any letter"
http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/holocaust/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_other_victims/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_resistance/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_white_rose_society.htm