Amazing... Bush creates his own line item veto

If this was a technique of other Presidents, then why is it an issue today if GW is doing the same as others?

He's not doing the same as others.

For an in-depth review of the arguments presented by both the Pro and Con sides, I would recommend that one reads the last 8 pages or so of Deb's 'Unitary Executive Branch' thread, starting here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2012035#2012035



Because, and here's the rub, every president who has done it in the past has also been in violation of the law.

What this amounts to, in usual cases, is a dare from the President for the Congress to take action against him. It is a matter of the president asserting that he has more power than traditionally granted to him in the Constitution.

The biggest differences, Woiyo, is that where other presidents in the past had the balls to do this in public, Bush does it in secret. Whereas they reserved this power for use in important instances, Bush has unilaterally declared over 750 laws unconstitutional since he came into office. This is far more than all other presidents combined have used. This means that Bush, and the Executive branch, decide that a bill which Congress has passed has unConstitutional elements roughly three times a week, every week, for his whole term as president. It's a wonder they have time to get anything done, really.

Bush is essentially gambling that the Republican-controlled Congress will not investigate this, and will not investigate him. Basically, Congress can call Bush out on this illegal behavior (and contrary to Tico's assertion, the behavior is illegal and has never, ever been shown to be anything but, outside of the opinion of the Executive Branch) and proceed with Impeachment hearings; of course, this will never happen in the current climate. Bush also knows that the Courts will not be able to review his lawbreaking, as the amount of time it would take for a case (if there could even be found a specific, injured party to bring the case) to reach the SC and to be ruled upon could be years; in the meantime, the President can go around breaking the law willy-nilly, and unless Congress steps up and makes him stop, he won't.

Bush derives his argument for the ability to spy upon innocent Americans at will from the theory of the Unitary Executive Branch; that is, the theory that Congress cannot limit the president in any way. Bush uses signing statements to enforce this theory. This is why Bush ignored the Torture amendment that McCain and others worked on; this is why the Bush Executive Branch doesn't report upon issues on the WoT that they don't wish to, in defiance of Congressional bills mandating that.

This isn't a matter of a few laws here and there that the President strongly feels shouldn't be enforced because they are UnConstitutional; this is a declaration that all laws attempting to limit the executive branch are unconstitutional.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution states that congress holds the power:



Only the most twisted of readings can construe this to mean anything other than the fact that Congress does in fact hold the power to limit the power of the executive. Therefore, the Unitary Executive Branch theory being applied by the Bush administration represents a clear break from traditional constituional understanding, and a strong step towards a Dictatorial government, where the powers of the Executive far trump those of any other branch.

This is why nothing - nothing - is more important for the Bush admin than holding on to both houses of Congress this midterm election. If they lose either one, they lose everything, because the investigations would show in no short time the extremes which this administration has gone to. And the fact is, Bush and Republicans in Congress already have their ratings in the toilet; they simply cannot afford to go any lower without facing serious threat of impeachment.

Thank you for your insightful question, Woiyo; it actually cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Cycloptichorn

Great post, Cyclo.

Your lipstick is smeared again Roxxxanne

And thank you, Cy, for stating matters in such a clear and concise form. I looked at Deb's thread a while back, and became a little intimidated. I should try it again.

But as you, and others, have implied: first things first. Critical to what may or may not be feasible in 2008 is what happens in 2006.

Beyond numbers as in above, I do wish that both the individual and collective members of Congress, present and future, would realize that they are not doing this country any favors as they are presently NOT doing. A backbone and some integrity and honesty would be nice, for starters.

Seems like GW and many other Presidents have found a unique way to get a line item veto without having a line item veto.

The Supreme Court has found that line item vetos are unconstitutional. I believe that would apply to underhanded, backdoor ones as well as those done out in the open.

From the article:



Try reading the linked article in its ENTIRETY before spouting off next time. If your going to be shot down, it should at least be over a solid argument, not simple reading comprehension.

I am fascinated with the assertion made by "Just An Observer" when he opines that "Bush's actions are simply no worse than those of other presidents, which is simply wrong".

I have searched the web for court decisions which concluded that "Bush's actions are worse than those of other presidents" but could find nothing of that kind.

Does "Just An Observer" have an official finding on Bush's actions? By official, I mean something which has been arrived at by duly elected bodies such as the House action on impeachment of Bill Clinton.

If so, I would be quite interested in seeing it. Thanking you in advance, Just an Observer!!

No. I was saying that, regarding the topic of this thread, to imply that Bush's actions are no worse than previous presidents is wrong.

There is a system of checks and balances in our government. Bush is acting as though they don't apply to him. Here, I'll make it easy:

Previous presidents have signed statements in the past.
When previous presidents have done this, they were "little more than bureaucratic memos instructing subordinates on the implementation of new laws."

Bush is now doing the same thing. Only he is actually writing in provisions that are, in effect, line item vetos for parts of the bills which he does not like. This is not good. Thus:

Writing in a veto provision is WORSE than a harmless bureaucratic memo. Why? Because Bush is, on a whim, increasing the power of the executive branch. You don't do that just because you want to.

I just can't explain it more simply than that.



That is just too absurd to be justified with a response.



You just wanted to squeeze in a "B-B-B-B-B-B-But Clinton!" comment there. Well, congratulations. You did.

I'd suggest you go to the first page and read Debra Law's articles if you really want to understand this issue. It's very detailed and spells it all out for you.

Do you mean Debra LAW's articles? If Debra LAW says that President Bush has done worse than any other president, I'll accept her opinion. I have read Debra LAW on these threads and I will say, without fear of contradiction, that she is probably one of the most brilliant minds in the entire country.

Because I am not as highly trained as Debra LAW, I sometimes cannot understand all she is writing and several times I have been tempted to view some of her arcane allusions to the Constitution of the United States as mere lawyerly obfuscation. But continued reading of Debra LAW's output have convinced me. She is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds I have ever encountered.

I can only hope that someone in authority who knows of President Bush's contempt for the Constitution finds Debra LAW and, indeed, brings her to DC to fight for right, Justice and the American way!!

Haha... Ok man, you got me. I thought you were being serious all this time. You had me going for a while there, too. [golf clap]

Although it's only right that when you trick the next person into taking you seriously, you don't drag it out so long.

There are more productive things the both of us could have been doing instead

I am serious. Do you deny that Debra LAW is one of the most prolific and brilliant LAW theorists in this country?

You don't believe it? Read her lengthy and, to the layman, almost unintelligible offerings. She has an answer for every constitutional legal problem in the USA,

Abortion

States Rights'

Powers of the Courts

etc. etc. etc.

BernardR has been a member of this forum for six days. Given his 132 post count thus far, he writes approximately 22 posts per day. Because he is so prolific in his own postings, I doubt that he has had any time to read mine.

Debra LAW- I could never read your posts. I can't understand them. You are so learned in the law and use so much verbiage which I could never understand, that I could not read your posts. I do know, however, when I come upon one of your most excellent posts, I seem to discern a kind of a halo emanating from your entry.

I would never be able to read or understand your legal missives since it is clear that your learning is far beyond that to which I could ever ascribe.

Perhaps, if you could give us a version which is understandable to the common man, I could read it.

I would greatly appreciate it since I am eager to learn from Debra LAW!!

Being snide may be facile, but it doesn't advance the seriousness of this particular topic. Or prhaps, any.

No your not. Now your just being silly. Your being a parody of these guys (click).

Don't know about the others, but at least I'm on to you.

He had me going for a time too.

Debra, I think you're overly concerned about Bernard's posts. Twenty-two posts/day? Why, A2K has several other members who can top that magnificant number of posts.