0
   

Congress to Bush: No Cronyism; Bush to Congress: Suck it!

 
 
DrewDad
 
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.

...

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 561 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 09:59 am
I knew George wouldn't back down! Way to go George!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 10:03 am
arrogant c*nt
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 10:05 am
Viva El Presidente!
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 10:36 am
Why would anyone applaud this?
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 10:39 am
Why would you not? George is standing up for himself and being a man, I have no quarrel with that.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 10:46 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:00 am
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 Laughing
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:03 am
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 Laughing

I hate to out Sturgis... but he has the finest grasp of satire of anyone on this message board.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:04 am
"cowboy"?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:05 am
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.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:10 am
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.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:14 am
Only takes one individual to start a court case....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Congress to Bush: No Cronyism; Bush to Congress: Suck it!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 11:16:12