Reply
Fri 6 Oct, 2006 09:58 am
Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law
Quote:WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.
To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership."
Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.
...
I knew George wouldn't back down! Way to go George!
Why would anyone applaud this?
Why would you not? George is standing up for himself and being a man, I have no quarrel with that.
I don't applaud it, but he may be right that Congress overstepped their authority and can't pass job descriptions for executive branch personell as law. However, in that case he should veto the law and institute the stricter job description himself -- possibly by executive order.
FreeDuck wrote:I don't applaud it, but he may be right that Congress overstepped their authority and can't pass job descriptions for executive branch personell as law. However, in that case he should veto the law and institute the stricter job description himself -- possibly by executive order.
but that wouldn't be very cowboy like of him and it would not enable people like sturgis to live their he man longings vicariously through him
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I don't applaud it, but he may be right that Congress overstepped their authority and can't pass job descriptions for executive branch personell as law. However, in that case he should veto the law and institute the stricter job description himself -- possibly by executive order.
but that wouldn't be very cowboy like of him and it would not enable people like sturgis to live their he man longings vicariously through him
I hate to out Sturgis... but he has the finest grasp of satire of anyone on this message board.
Many of these agencies incorporate powers from both the legislative and executive branches, as they have both the power to issue rules and enforce rules.
I forsee more interesting legal challenges to the whole issue of signing statements.
So do I, but not until we have more than one party in power. As soon as we have one party in the whitehouse and another controlling congress, then you'll see challenges. It doesn't matter which party controls which.
Only takes one individual to start a court case....