Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws

[Baculus]

I had heard about this issue, but I hadn't seen any specific articles except for this particular article. I also searched on the forum and didn't find any posts that addressed this specific issue at this time.

BUSH CHALLENGES HUNDREDS OF LAWS

President cites powers of his office

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=1

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Article Tools.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Click here for the rest of the article.

[Baculus]

Pertaining to this issue, the various signing statements:

"Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

And to compare two former Presidents:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/statutes_challenged/

[Fred Jones]

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

I guess you really can't make this stuff up. So, Bush decides what laws he thinks are unconstitutional and just simply disobeys them.

[Baculus]

Unfortunately, Fred, that is the case.

So much for a Constitutional Republic with a balance and separation of powers. Here, Bush appears to believe that one man = one power.

[Fred Jones]

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

This is just absurb. I thought the Republicans were all about the Constitution.

[CurseReversed]

yes, you didnt know? He's evil and wants to destroy the constitution and take your rights........

[Fred Jones]

yes, you didnt know? He's evil and wants to destroy the constitution and take your rights........

I guess I was brainwashed into believing he was leading the country within the bounds of the law.

[chomerics]

I posted the same article in an argument with another poster, but yes, it is very troubling to me.

[Baculus]

By the way, for those who do not want to register to read the article:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/30/america/web.0430bush.php

Yes, troubling to say the least. What word to you use when power is concentratred in one man? I can't...quite seem to think of it.

[Baculus]

Incidentally, and not to spam my own thread, but this issue is the reason why many folks question the current administration's intent with intelligence gathering on American citizens. The administration seems to have little intent or interest in the law, or its interpretation of it.

I'd like to hear a Bush supporter's thoughts on this matter...If any will respond.

[Fred Jones]

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector "shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Dictator comes to mind when I think of this article.

[Fred Jones]

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over "the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

"Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said.

This is just crazy.

[bearrock]

There are many actions by the president that I disagree with, but this one takes the cake. If a president can decide that a congressional action is unconstitutional on their own, it throws the checks and balance system out the window. I can think of few things more dangerous to the American political system. Why even bother having the Supreme Court?

As for the administration's statement that they are only reserving the power to disobey on constitutional grounds, fine, then tell the American people which provisions you disobeyed and why. Bush doesn't have to reveal classified information, but at least tell the people which portions of the law on the books is not being enforced and how often. You know what? Better yet. Why doesn't the administration take the matter to court and let the Supreme Court determine constitutionality of a law. I heard that's what they are there for.

This brings up another thought. When the administration has been saying all this time that their programs are perfectly within the bounds of the law (NSA spying and collecting phone records for example), do they mean they are lawful under the statutes passed by Congress or do they mean they are lawful under the president's version of the statutes.

[Fred Jones]

This brings up another thought. When the administration has been saying all this time that their programs are perfectly within the bounds of the law (NSA spying and collecting phone records for example), do they mean they are lawful under the statutes passed by Congress or do they mean they are lawful under the president's version of the statutes.

Bingo, he can say without lying that no one in his administration broke the law because the president's version of statute can be crafted so no law would be broken.

I wonder if we as general citizens can do that in real life?

[Redskins Diehard]

Bingo, he can say without lying that no one in his administration broke the law because the president's version of statute can be crafted so no law would be broken.

I wonder if we as general citizens can do that in real life?

No, you can't. You also can't deploy the armed forces, fly in Air Force One, live in the White House, sign any legislation, appoint Supreme Court judges, pardon criminals, and many, manyother things that he can:)

[Art]

Last I checked, Executive Orders are all generally quietly done. The President absolutely does have the power to do a great number of things simply because he's the President. The President isn't a regular citizen. He's the leader of a branch of government. No, I can't simply say a criminal should be released from jail, but, the President can. He can even make something that was a crime not a crime in this and other ways. It's good to be the king.

[Larry]

Last I checked, Executive Orders are all generally quietly done. The President absolutely does have the power to do a great number of things simply because he's the President. The President isn't a regular citizen. He's the leader of a branch of government. No, I can't simply say a criminal should be released from jail, but, the President can. He can even make something that was a crime not a crime in this and other ways. It's good to be the king.

Yeah but I bet he doesn't have a custom avatar.

[Redskins Diehard]

... It's good to be the king.

I am the first to quote this. I am sure there will be others that pounce on it. That is only if they read the whole post before responding!!

See below...#23...who'd a thunk it?

[Larry]

yes, you didnt know? He's evil and wants to destroy the constitution and take your rights........

Y'know, I was looking at the Bill of Rights a month or so ago:

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I've highlighted the ones that he hasn't declared that he has the authority to ignore. (AFAIK)

(Yet.)

[Fred Jones]

No, you can't. You also can't deploy the armed forces, fly in Air Force One, live in the White House, sign any legislation, appoint Supreme Court judges, pardon criminals, and many, manyother things that he can:)

Darn it!

[Redskins Diehard]

Just a question here(alright a few)... Does anyone have a problem with the 232 laws that HW challenged and 140 that Willie challenged? In other words, what is the threshold that you are willing to tolerate? Or should the practice be abolished all together?

[Larry]

Just a question here(alright a few)... Does anyone have a problem with the 232 laws that HW challenged and 140 that Willie challenged? In other words, what is the threshold that you are willing to tolerate? Or should the practice be abolished all together?

Uh, I'll point out that, at least as described, the signing statements are intended to reflect the President's decisions as to how to impliment a piece of legislation. (Part of the process of turning legislation into bureaucratic policy).

So a signing statement does not necessarily indicate a President's announcement that he's going to ignore a law. (Either for this President or his predicessors.)

This could skew an attempt to rank a President's "lawlessness" simply by counting the number of documents.

[chomerics]

It's good to be the king.

All hail to King George. . . Art playing off Kos, who'd a thunk it :doh:

:allhail:

[Redskins Diehard]

Uh, I'll point out that, at least as described, the signing statements are intended to reflect the President's decisions as to how to impliment a piece of legislation. (Part of the process of turning legislation into bureaucratic policy).

So a signing statement does not necessarily indicate a President's announcement that he's going to ignore a law. (Either for this President or his predicessors.)

This could skew an attempt to rank a President's "lawlessness" simply by counting the number of documents.

Thanks Larry, I did read the article, even the part you had to click the link to get to. But reading through the thread it seems that some of the posters are absolutely besides themselves with complete disgust. I was wondering if they had an issue with the practice, or the frequency. Could this be a "backdoor veto"? Is it just getting his thoughts(alright the thoughts of someone in the administration) on record?

[bearrock]

Just a question here(alright a few)... Does anyone have a problem with the 232 laws that HW challenged and 140 that Willie challenged? In other words, what is the threshold that you are willing to tolerate? Or should the practice be abolished all together?

The practice should be abolished all together. Any disagreement the president has with congressional action must be made public through process such as exercising the veto power and resolved by the judiciary branch. In this case, the public has a right to know.