Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats the thing, is this another step in powers that did not exist before? There are many aspects where warrants are not honored when there is a urgency to the issue.
So while I fully agree we need to be on the ball and paying attention to the level of power that we allow within the government, some things that require immediate resolutions in order to serve the protection of the people is required. What we do need to do is to educate ourselves on the facts of these issues so we can better regulate the government in its ability.
It is another step in Executive power not taken before. The President's responsibility is to enforce the laws as passed by Congress. Not to re-write them. Not to say he will enforce them or break them according to his whims. Not to interpret the intent of Congress passing those laws.
When the President uses signing statements to say that he is above the law, that because there are enemies of the United States out there he must be able to dispense with the niceties of the law, then he has diminished the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the very foundation of our government.
And while I think Bush is sincerely interested in protecting the citizens of the United States, it should be pointed out that his Oath of Office is about upholding the Constitution and the laws of this nation. When he effectively says, yeah, this is a good law, but I'll disregard it if I think it's necessary, then he's ceased to uphold the Constitution. Instead he's ignoring the entire idea of all men are created equal, because hey, he's President, his judgment supercedes everyone else's, and he can act in any way he think is justifiable, and the citizens of this nation have no right to question his actions. Is that really the way we want an American President to think and behave?
"Yes, oh so much evidence so very well documented here on these boards""
Oh, I'm sorry these boards are your only available source of information! I thought you had access to a computer (it should open up a whole big world to you) , newspapers, magazines, books, radio, TV, and documentation.
"""You were merely pointing out the actions of the furor, I mean Bush. """
No, please try really hard to read that quote again...it's about people, citizens who didn't want to pay attention....have you TRIED READING????!!!!! Or just too afraid of something?
Yes, because I have a direct connection to the way your mind works (sarcasm). The problem is that often the claims I hear about "Evil Bush" are formed from fallacies, out of context claims, and sometimes very very stupid assumptions I would expect from a 16th century mob of poorly educated and highly superstitious peasants. That or they are "over educated" to the point of being so darn impressed with themselves that they have lost all sense of understanding the core of the issues.
You "claim" there is all this evidence, yet fail to even provide on an issue or even in this case "clarify" what it is exactly about this topic that is wrong.
So far, your comments in this thread are nothing more than the common banter we see out in the general public. These boards are actually pretty standard for much of the garbage and misinterpretations you read in all of the areas you suggest I get my information.
Usually though, one presents a claim, provides a reason and the backs it if needed to an opposition. So far, you have no position other than "Bush is bad" and somehow I am supposed to just "know" what it is you are talking about.
So please excuse me if I don't run off and grab every story and accusation made about this administration and try to defend it all at once. In fact, though you probably haven't even stopped for a second to ponder this, I don't support the administration on every action they make. I disagree with many things, yet unlike you I can accurately describe in detail the issues I do and not only that, provide the valid backing and reasoning to support that disagreement.
Yet this requires you to actually read more than the headlines or be a bobbing head for anyone who spouts off garbage you "feel" is truth. Maybe you should educate yourself on the positions you claim to hold?
It is another step in Executive power not taken before. The President's responsibility is to enforce the laws as passed by Congress. Not to re-write them. Not to say he will enforce them or break them according to his whims. Not to interpret the intent of Congress passing those laws.
When the President uses signing statements to say that he is above the law, that because there are enemies of the United States out there he must be able to dispense with the niceties of the law, then he has diminished the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the very foundation of our government.
And while I think Bush is sincerely interested in protecting the citizens of the United States, it should be pointed out that his Oath of Office is about upholding the Constitution and the laws of this nation. When he effectively says, yeah, this is a good law, but I'll disregard it if I think it's necessary, then he's ceased to uphold the Constitution. Instead he's ignoring the entire idea of all men are created equal, because hey, he's President, his judgment supercedes everyone else's, and he can act in any way he think is justifiable, and the citizens of this nation have no right to question his actions. Is that really the way we want an American President to think and behave?
DC
Read a bit more about the powers of each aspect of our government. They are a balancing mechanism. Each has powers within their areas in specific cases. None is fully in power and yet none is fully subservient to the other, yet all are ultimately regulated by the people. It was that way by design.
Read a bit more about the powers of each aspect of our government. They are a balancing mechanism. Each has powers within their areas in specific cases. None is fully in power and yet none is fully subservient to the other, yet all are ultimately regulated by the people. It was that way by design.
My point exactly. So when the President ignores Congressional oversight as an inconvenience, he is upsetting that balance.
My point exactly. So when the President ignores Congressional oversight as an inconvenience, he is upsetting that balance.
No, he is within his power concerning some issues. For instance, while only legislative branch can declare war, the executive branch can initiate actions without that authorization. There are many powers the executive branch has that some might believe are ignoring our systems process. Many are wrong due to ignorance of our system. Whats funny is that they don't even teach these details in the government classes anymore. Apparently, remembering who the vice president is can be taxing and so they cut out all the hard stuff.
edit:
There are some "wrongs" in the government, but what I find rather funny is that I have seen congress wrong use of power in many things, yet nobody blinks an eye on those issues, yet if Bush passes gas in the white house, all hell breaks lose and people cry oppression. Its really all BS.
Actually, I think I'm taking offense at your presumption that I don't know what powers the executive branch enjoys. While you may take the position that the signing statements that Bush has issued on more than one out of every ten laws that Congress has passed is merely his expression of those powers, it is clear when you read the signing statements that he is stating his intention to bypass the law if he sees fit. It's fair to say that the system of checks and balances in the system is in part designed to prevent the President from doing exactly this thing. While during war the President obviously enjoys more freedom of action, those additional powers are to allow him to address issues of war. His signing statements regarding independent assessment of the educational system, or protection of whistleblowers are a far stretch to issues of war. Apparently some of us still get to learn the details in government classes, and have the opportunity to not just memorize the lingo, but actually understand the meaning.
Actually, I think I'm taking offense at your presumption that I don't know what powers the executive branch enjoys. While you may take the position that the signing statements that Bush has issued on more than one out of every ten laws that Congress has passed is merely his expression of those powers, it is clear when you read the signing statements that he is stating his intention to bypass the law if he sees fit. It's fair to say that the system of checks and balances in the system is in part designed to prevent the President from doing exactly this thing. While during war the President obviously enjoys more freedom of action, those additional powers are to allow him to address issues of war. His signing statements regarding independent assessment of the educational system, or protection of whistleblowers are a far stretch to issues of war. Apparently some of us still get to learn the details in government classes, and have the opportunity to not just memorize the lingo, but actually understand the meaning.
DC
Take offense, I care not. It does not change the fact that your only claim is assumptions at the workings of our system.
Funny how you say "clear" and then back it with an assumption.
As I said, go read some more on the powers of our system. Your confusing the branches and their powers associated with them. It is not a linear hierarchy in their powers. They each share control over various areas, yet are allowed to deviate through some circumstances.
Take offense, I care not. It does not change the fact that your only claim is assumptions at the workings of our system.
As I said, go read some more on the powers of our system. Your confusing the branches and their powers associated with them. It is not a linear hierarchy in their powers. They each share control over various areas, yet are allowed to deviate through some circumstances.
I maintain that it is you that is confusing the powers. I agree that it is not a linear hierarchy. But the signing statements are being used as line-vetoes, with Bush going through bills line-by-line and cherry-picking which items he agrees with and which he doesn't. This is not one of his powers. Please go read some more yourself and point out to me where the President gets to pick and choose which laws he will obey and which he won't.
It is another step in Executive power not taken before. The President's responsibility is to enforce the laws as passed by Congress. Not to re-write them. Not to say he will enforce them or break them according to his whims. Not to interpret the intent of Congress passing those laws.
When the President uses signing statements to say that he is above the law, that because there are enemies of the United States out there he must be able to dispense with the niceties of the law, then he has diminished the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the very foundation of our government.
And while I think Bush is sincerely interested in protecting the citizens of the United States, it should be pointed out that his Oath of Office is about upholding the Constitution and the laws of this nation. When he effectively says, yeah, this is a good law, but I'll disregard it if I think it's necessary, then he's ceased to uphold the Constitution. Instead he's ignoring the entire idea of all men are created equal, because hey, he's President, his judgment supercedes everyone else's, and he can act in any way he think is justifiable, and the citizens of this nation have no right to question his actions. Is that really the way we want an American President to think and behave?
DC
First... Bush is expounding upon Executive Laws, put into place by Clinton...
Second.. This whole argument between him signing this bill is stupid. He is NOT making opening up the mail legal, that already exists.. He is making the filing of lawsuits, based upon opening of ones mail impossible. There is a difference.
USPS DM 373 subsection 2.3 states
"2.3 Postal Inspection
Media Mail is not sealed against postal inspection. Regardless of physical closure, the mailing of articles at Media Mail rates constitutes consent by the mailer to postal inspection of the contents."
This also applies to other shipping methods, Library rate is DM 383 section 2.5
Parcel post is DM 153 section 2.3... etc
By using the USPS, one pretty much concents to the government permission to open the mail. How else do you think they convict people for shipping illegal products through the mail, or using the mail service for "mail fraud" etc..
I maintain that it is you that is confusing the powers. I agree that it is not a linear hierarchy. But the signing statements are being used as line-vetoes, with Bush going through bills line-by-line and cherry-picking which items he agrees with and which he doesn't. This is not one of his powers.
I would agree. You can call it "legislating from the Oval Office" or you can call it "abuse of powers", but either way, it is outside the bounds of anything included in Article 2.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you had access to a computer (it should open up a whole big world to you) , newspapers, magazines, books, radio, TV, and documentation.
