July 25, 2006
Editorial
Read the Fine Print
Over 212 years, 42 presidents issued "signing statements" objecting to a grand total of 600 provisions of new laws. George W. Bush has done that more than 800 times in just over five and a half years in office.
Most presidents used signing statements to get legal objections on the record for judges to consider in any court challenge. For Mr. Bush, they are far more: part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts. His signing statements have become notices to Congress that he simply does not intend to follow the law, especially any attempt to hold him accountable for his actions.
Some of Mr. Bush's signing statements have become notorious, like the one in which he said he didn't feel bound by the new law against torturing prisoners. Others were more obscure, like the one in which he said he would not follow a law forbidding the White House to censor or withhold scientific data requested by Congress.
But all serve the "unitary executive theory" cherished by some of Mr. Bush's most extreme advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal staff. The Bush administration often says the president is just trying to stop Congress from interfering with his ability to keep the nation safe, and that other presidents also included constitutional objections in their signing statements. That's just smoke.The A.B.A. called Mr. Bush's use of presidential signing statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers" and recommended that Congress enact legislation clarifying the issue.
We agree on both points, even though we fear that if Congress passes a bill, Mr. Bush will simply issue a new signing statement saying he also does not intend to follow it.
The likelihood that congress will act on this issue is nil.
Throw the bums out!
The signing statements are very offensive to me. However, I am pretty certain that the courts will declare them illegal. They are tantamount to line item vetos, which power has not been given to the president.
It is sad that the right is not also offended by this blatant power grab by Bush.
Frm the WSJ:
May 11, 2006, 9:12 pm
Bush Dips Into the 20s
President Bush's job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an "excellent or pretty good" job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%.
Roughly one-quarter of U.S. adults say "things in the country are going in the right direction," while 69% say "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." This has been the trend since January, when 33% said the nation was heading in the right direction. Iraq remains a key concern for the general public, as 28% of Americans said they consider Iraq to be one of the top two most important issues the government should address, up from 23% in April. The immigration debate also prompted 16% of Americans to consider it a top issue, down from 19% last month, but still sharply higher from 4% in March.
The Harris poll comes two days after a downbeat assessement of Bush in a New York Times/CBS News poll. The Times, in analyzing the results, said "Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades."
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
A speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
RexRed wrote:"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
A speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Yup...it sounds to me like a guy who would just as soon piss on the King of England...and on England itself...as anything else.
It sounds like a guy consumed with anger toward a government and the people who operate that government....people whom he sneers at.
What is your point, Rex?
Are you trying to show that I was right...and you were wrong?
Damn, that is decent of you.
Must be that Yankee upbringing of yours.
Advocate wrote:The signing statements are very offensive to me. However, I am pretty certain that the courts will declare them illegal. They are tantamount to line item vetos, which power has not been given to the president.
It is sad that the right is not also offended by this blatant power grab by Bush.
So its a power grab when Bush does it,but not when any previous President did the same thing?
We shall see how the courts rule. In the meantime, the statements stand.
After all of the furor concering the Guantanamo prisoners, they are still in Guantanamo and the Senate is working on the possible revision of juridical procedures to be applied to those prisoners in the light of the rulings of the USSC. Perhaps the procedures will be ready by the time the next president is elected. In the meantime, the prisoners REMAIN in Guantanamo!!!
Rexred, when people get old, their brains stop functioning in what could be considered a "normal" way. Arguing with them beyond 2 posts is futile. If they have not, or will not understand by the second post then they never will and repeating yourself will do no good.
Take a look at some of out elder posters, (keep in mind that not every old brain petrifies at the same rate) like cicerone imposter, frank apisa, bumble bee boogie. Arguing with them is like poking a dead skunk. It's fun at first, but the stink overwhelms you quickly and you need to move on.
McGentrix wrote:Rexred, when people get old, their brains stop functioning in what could be considered a "normal" way. Arguing with them beyond 2 posts is futile. If they have not, or will not understand by the second post then they never will and repeating yourself will do no good.
Take a look at some of out elder posters, (keep in mind that not every old brain petrifies at the same rate) like cicerone imposter, frank apisa, bumble bee boogie. Arguing with them is like poking a dead skunk. It's fun at first, but the stink overwhelms you quickly and you need to move on.
TRANSLATION: These folks have been cleaning our clock regularly...and every time we argue back, they clean out some more. Best to just pretend there is something wrong with them...declare victory...and bow out.
Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:Rexred, when people get old, their brains stop functioning in what could be considered a "normal" way. Arguing with them beyond 2 posts is futile. If they have not, or will not understand by the second post then they never will and repeating yourself will do no good.
Take a look at some of out elder posters, (keep in mind that not every old brain petrifies at the same rate) like cicerone imposter, frank apisa, bumble bee boogie. Arguing with them is like poking a dead skunk. It's fun at first, but the stink overwhelms you quickly and you need to move on.
TRANSLATION: These folks have been cleaning our clock regularly...and every time we argue back, they clean out some more. Best to just pretend there is something wrong with them...declare victory...and bow out.
See that? A fine example of what I am talking about. Thanks for stepping up Frank, I knew you would.
McGentrix wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:Rexred, when people get old, their brains stop functioning in what could be considered a "normal" way. Arguing with them beyond 2 posts is futile. If they have not, or will not understand by the second post then they never will and repeating yourself will do no good.
Take a look at some of out elder posters, (keep in mind that not every old brain petrifies at the same rate) like cicerone imposter, frank apisa, bumble bee boogie. Arguing with them is like poking a dead skunk. It's fun at first, but the stink overwhelms you quickly and you need to move on.
TRANSLATION: These folks have been cleaning our clock regularly...and every time we argue back, they clean out some more. Best to just pretend there is something wrong with them...declare victory...and bow out.
See that? A fine example of what I am talking about. Thanks for stepping up Frank, I knew you would.
No problem, McG. I enjoy arguing with people like you. An easy win is fun once in a while.
Now, here's an odd coincidence...
Quote:29% think Mr. Bush is doing an "excellent or pretty good" job as president,
That's the same stat for positive response when people are asked "Would you wish your daughter to marry a mortuary attendant?"
mysteryman wrote:Advocate wrote:The signing statements are very offensive to me. However, I am pretty certain that the courts will declare them illegal. They are tantamount to line item vetos, which power has not been given to the president.
It is sad that the right is not also offended by this blatant power grab by Bush.
So its a power grab when Bush does it,but not when any previous President did the same thing?
I think you need to sit down and carefully read/consider the following analysis from David Cole...
http://www.tomdispatch.com/
Ours is not a democracy but an imperialism, because our congress and supreme court have approved this change.
cicerone imposter wrote:Ours is not a democracy but an imperialism, because our congress and supreme court have approved this change.
What are you babbling about, c.i.? What change has been approved by Congress and the Supreme Court?
Lowyer ticomaya doesn't understand Constitional laws as expected.
cicerone imposter wrote:Lowyer ticomaya doesn't understand Constitional laws as expected.
It's a simple question, c.i., so you ought to be able to answer it: What "change" are you talking about?
ci
Actually, you ought to read the Cole piece too. You've got something wrong in this.
cicerone imposter wrote:Ours is not a democracy but an imperialism, because our congress and supreme court have approved this change.
ci, you are losing it. I used to take you half way serious, but you seem to be going out into never never land.
