US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged
Source: Boston Globe
(snip) WASHINGTON -- Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers. (snip)
(snip) House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers , Democrat of Michigan, said yesterday that the GAO's findings demonstrated a need for a more "extensive review" of how the government has followed up on hundreds of other laws challenged by Bush.
"The administration is thumbing its nose at the law," said Conyers, one of the lawmakers who commissioned the GAO study. (snip)
(snip) For example, one law requires the Customs and Border Patrol to relocate its illegal immigrant checkpoints near Tucson every seven days to prevent smugglers from being able to predict where they are, but the agency failed to do so. The border patrol told the GAO that the law is flawed because it "diverts resources," and it characterized the requirement as "advisory."
In his signing statement of Oct. 18, 2005, Bush instructed the border patrol to view the "relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory" on the assertion that only the president has the constitutional authority to decide how to deploy law enforcement officers. (snip)
(snip) The GAO conducted its study by looking at all the provisions in 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2006 that Bush challenged in signing statements. It counted 160 such laws that the president had claimed a right to ignore.
Investigators then selected a representative sample of 19 bill provisions Bush had targeted and asked agencies to explain whether and how they had obeyed the provisions. It found that 10 such laws were enforced as written, six were not enforced as written, and three did not have to be enforced because the circumstance envisioned had not materialized. (snip)
15. Power is more easily grabbed than relinquished. . .
As recipients of a political reality altered beyond anything the wildest thinkers could have imagined just a few short years ago, it will take a remarkable will for anyone to revoke it, let alone strive to revert it to what it was before. Certainly, I see a quick return to some aspects of "normality" after the next election, but the allure of unbridled power will remain and, despite readily accomplished cosmetic improvements, power's seduction will be a Siren song of indeterminate appeal. Yet another reason for us to choose very wisely in the coming elections.
33. I think that would be an excellent candidate question, and one that MUST be asked
Edited on Tue Jun-19-07 02:34 PM by TechBear_Seattle
"The current administration has assumed a great deal of power: signing statements that override the law, the power of a 'unary executive' and the like. If you are elected President, will you exercise these same power or will you repudiate them?"
This question should be asked however many times is needed to make the candidate clearly pick one or the other answer clearly and on the record, without vagueness, ambivalence, explanation or equivocation. Any candidate who then answers "excercise" should be thrown out of the race for president and arrested for conspiracy to commit treason. Any candidate who answers "repudiate," gets elected and then excercises such powers in any way, shape or form should be automatically impeached and arrested for conspiracy to commit treason in gross violation of the Oath of Office.
5. The Gonzo interpretation of the Oath of Office: pfffft!! "It says nothing about
enforcing the rule of Law!"
President's Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The total number of signing statements before this president by ALL presidents is 322. Bush signed 435 in his first term alone!!! The EXACT number to date is not known as this administration REFUSES to give that information out...we do know that 1149 laws have been "altered"
All I know is ...if Bill had signed a statement protecting him from, well, not exactly admitting to what he said did or didn't happen that fateful night (what a witch hunt that was)...We wouldn't be in this mess right now :(
In his signing statement of Oct. 18, 2005, Bush instructed the border patrol to view the "relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory" on the assertion that only the president has the constitutional authority to decide how to deploy law enforcement officers.
I need to get my friends and family outta here before this asshole gets us all killed...
I now view the Congress--Pelosi, Conyers, Nadler, Kucinich, all of them--as complicit in this disempowerment of the people of the United States.
Any Congressperson of energy and conscience could bring government to a screeching halt and demand these abuses be rectified if they wanted to.
But they don't because they don't want to call attention to their own complicity in the crimes, and they hope to turn the tables and profit from the illegal abuses after 2008, in much the same way BushCo does now.
It's really up to us, you know. We will never have justice if we wait for the powerful to administer it for us.
"In the course of human events," the time has come!
CNN is running a piece similar to this, but with a little twist that seems to GREATLY distort the facts. The headline is "Signing Statements add presidential spin to new laws." The first byline summary reads "Statements allow president to interpret or restrict new laws."
How unbelieveable is this!!! The "News" is reporting that signing statements have legal authority! When is this shit going to stop?
27. Gee, Congressman Conyers, what gave you your first clue?
"The administration is thumbing its nose at the law,"
Did it ever occur to you that someone, some gang of thugs, who stole a national election or several did it in order to do GOOD?
I know Conyers is a good guy, but sooner or later we're going to have to get waaaaaay beyond talk. And he needs to confront Pelosi on some of this and SOMEONE needs to get the ball moving. It's NOT like it's something the public doesn't support (and more WOULD were some of the long list of crimes and misdeed aired to the public):
28. Question -- can anyone explain the quality vs quantity of presidential statements?
It's important to point out that Bush has issued more signing statements than all presidents in history. And it's about time someone actually decided to correlate the government's behavior with the statements.
But it seems that it is rarely pointed out just what was the content of the signing statements of former presidents.
Most of them were bland political thank yous -- like, "Senator Bloviator and Representative Hotair and I have worked hard to reach across the aisle and compromise on this bill and it's a pleasure to sign the Fresh Milk in School Act into law today in the presence of mothers against sour milk ... blah, blah, blah..."
In other words, most signing statements by previous presidents were in favor of the bill being signed. Then presidential pens were handed out and pictures taken. Until this administration they were pretty meaningless, although once in a blue moon a court would cite the signing statement as an explanation of what the law was intended to do.
I would like to know whether there were many (or even any) signing statements by prior presidents that criticized the bill being signed or that threatened not to follow its provisions.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.