Three leading Democratic senators attack Bush over 'signing statements'

[cal04]

Three leading Democratic senators blasted President Bush Monday for having claimed he has the authority to defy more than 750 statutes enacted since he took office, saying that the president's legal theories are wrong and that he must obey the law, the BOSTON GLOBE will report in Tuesday papers, RAW STORY has learned.

"We're a government of laws, not men," Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in a statement. "It is not for George W. Bush to disregard the Constitution and decide that he is above the law." Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of attempting to concentrate ever more government power in their own hands.

"The Bush-Cheney administration has cultivated an insidious brand of unilateralism that regularly crosses into an arrogance of power," Leahy said in a statement. "The scope of the administration's assertions of power is stunning, and it is chilling."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, also warned that the Bush administration, abetted by "a compliant Republican Congress," was undermining the checks and balances that "guard against abuses of power by any single branch of government." The senators were responding to a report in Sunday's Boston Globe which revealed that Bush had sidestepped some 750 laws (Read the report here).

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Three_leading_Democratic_senators_attack_Bush_0501.html

[NanceGreggs]

1. While I applaud the actions of Reid, Leahy, Kennedy ...

... Conyers, Boxer, at el, I can't help but wonder where the REST of our elected officials are ...

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

5. Good point, NanceGreggs. I am

outraged that all this crap goes down, day by day, week by week, and because Dems are on vacation, or involved in the nitpickiness of what's going on in the Congress that never gets anything done, nothing is getting done! I am an optimist but have a slow fume going on which may get more advanced soon. :grr: :grr: :grr: :hi:

[NanceGreggs]

7. Hey, Babylon Sister!

You might want to check this out:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2601605&mesg_id=2601605

It's guaranteed to add another :mad: or two to the line-up!

:hi:

[marmar]

2. They ought to be...

This is just f..king outrageous. What happened to the "rule of law" he trumpets all the time? It doesn't apply to him?
Saying that we are on the fast track to despotism is more than hyberbolic these days.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

3. Further

Why do they feel they need the cover of a reporter before they talk about this. This isn't news. This has been discussed many times on many individual bills and in congressional committees.

[napi21]

4. I smell a problem with trying to push this issue.

I heard the reporter from the Globe talking about this today. He was asked if this s something new or if signing statements had been done before. As soon as I heard they've been used by other Presidents in the past, going back a long time, I got worried. All I recall is that Reagan had, Geirge H had sone about 100, Clinton had done around 150. Now, I understand 750 is way over the top, BUT how are the Dems going to be able to really fight this when other Presidents have done the same thing...just not to that excess?

I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket on this issue, but I really think it's a question we should all be thinking about it.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

6. It's isn't the same with other presidents at all

The author explains this well in the article. There's way more then just an increase in number of times used.

[quiet.american]

9. The focus shouldn't be on the use of them, but the abuse of them.

You've actually identified the solution in your question. :)

750 signing statements is part and parcel of Bush's systemic abuse of power. The focus here should be on showing how this fits the pattern of Bush's abuse of power, especially as it relates to other presidents. Bush alone has issued more signing statements than all the presidents (not that he is one) before him combined; he has abused the signing statement in the name of holding himself above the law, and that's where the focus should be.

[freeplessinseattle]

16. and the only Prez who has never vetoed anything

now that is striking

[badgerpup]

11. It's not 750 signing statements.

It's 750 laws that he has broken since he took office. :mad:

[tuvor]

8. Three Democrats?

THREE?!

[savemefromdumbya]

10. about time someone noticed.

[librechik]

12. we need republicans with integrity right now

step forward, your country needs you to call a traitor to account

[DemonFighterLives]

14. Do they come in that variety?

:rofl:

[ForrestGump]

19. Yeah, but they're not exactly in favor these days

Not that elected Democrats are doing much better in the integrity department.

[librechik]

22. I bet they could fake it.

better than they do now

[DemonFighterLives]

13. Kick for the dems I can count on one hand

Take it to em gang of three!
:dem:

[young_at_heart]

15. EVERY senator should be behind this

How can they be happy with the way they have been marginalized?

[radfringe]

17. that's why he never has to VETO

he just excludes himself from what he doesn't like

so why does he need a line-item veto when he can just crayon-whip out a piece of paper and exclude himself

[cal04]

18. 3 Democrats slam president over defying statutes(Globe article)

Three leading Democratic senators blasted President Bush yesterday for having claimed he has the authority to defy more than 750 statutes enacted since he took office, saying that the president's legal theories are wrong and that he must obey the law.

''We're a government of laws, not men," Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in a statement. ''It is not for George W. Bush to disregard the Constitution and decide that he is above the law." Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of attempting to concentrate ever more government power in their own hands.

''The Bush-Cheney administration has cultivated an insidious brand of unilateralism that regularly crosses into an arrogance of power," Leahy said in a statement. ''The scope of the administration's assertions of power is stunning, and it is chilling." Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, also said that the Bush administration, abetted by ''a compliant Republican Congress," was undermining the checks and balances that ''guard against abuses of power by any single branch of government." The opposition lawmakers were reacting to a report in Sunday's Boston Globe detailing the scope of Bush's assertions that he can ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

(snip)
Many scholars also contend that Bush is usurping some of the lawmaking powers of the Congress and Constitution-interpreting powers of the courts. But, Leahy said, because Bush's fellow Republicans control Congress, Democrats have no power to call hearings on Bush's attempt to ''pick and choose which laws he deems appropriate to follow."
''Just as disturbing as the president's use of press releases to announce which laws he will follow is the abject failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to act as a check against this executive power grab," Leahy said. ''Until Republican leaders let Congress fulfill its oversight role, this White House will have no incentive to stop this abuse of power."

more
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3_democrats_slam_president_over_defying/

[annabanana]

20. The first I ever heard of "signing statements"

was in the context of the "no torture allowed, ever, by anyone of our agents"

("Except when I say so" - B*sh)

I got my big WTF moment then. These are clearly extra-Constitutional and take law making functions away from Congress.

[Joe Fields]

21. I have to say that this is bullshit!

Where the hell have they been all of this time? Have they, and the rest of the democrats in Washington not been paying attention? It takes an article by the Boston Globe to bring this to the forefront, and we now want to applaud our democratic "leadership" for jumping on the bandwagon a few years late?

I don't know about you guys, but I expect and demand more from my leaders, than a little lip service about a subject they all should hasve been screaming loud and long over, only after an article about this subject pops up in a major newspaper.