Real World Event Discussions

Is this accurate?

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 21:33
VIEWED: 7022
PAGE 1 of 6

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:00 PM

If so, I find it lamentable...

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

Quote:

"Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
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.

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.

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.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first presid

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HERO

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Is this accurate? Is this web source reliable?

Yes and no. The source is not reliable because, while accurate, the story's premise is fatally flawed.

H

JMB9039

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:10 PM

Ah, Hero, here we go again..

While the accuracy of the article can come into question because it is rather editorial in nature. Many do agree that Bush has broken numerous laws (perhaps as many as the article claims), yet others will argue that his authority gives him the power to do so.

Legally, it is a continuing argument. I think until there is a serious investigation and open, critical debate, we'll just keep arguing the same points. Time to start digging for the truth.

JMB9039

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:22 PM

I'm not sure if it's included in THIS article, but the latest - and breathtaking- abrogation of the law was shen Bush recently signed a bill inot law that had NOT been passed in the same form by both the House and Senate. UNCONSTITUTIONAL action.

Quote:
When Democratic members of the House learned that the Senate and Speaker Hastert had sent the President legislation that was substantially different that what the House had passed - different to the tune of $2 billion dollars -- they were understandably upset. They had already been shut out of the process: The entire legislative package of cuts had largely been agreed upon behind closed doors, without any Democrats present - now standard procedure in the GOP controlled Congress -- and the vote in the House had been taken after midnight, which is another ploy frequently relied upon by the GOP leaders. But this added injury to insult: The legislation that had gone to the President, was materially different from the legislation upon which they had voted!

I don't know how Bush supporters justify his actions to themselves, let alone how they justify it to others. It's really NOT "politics as usual", it's a naked and wholly unconstitutional (and I don't mean that metaphorically, Bush is breaking the law as set forth in the Constitution) power grab that could only be clearer if Bush refused to step down at the end of his term.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

ZISKER

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:33 PM

Bush has 994 more days in office (but who's counting?). At this point, with his ratings, he won't be able to declare himself president for life.

So, the question is: will history look back on his behavior as a deviation from the norm, or will future presidents cite his actions as precedent for their own questionable, deeply unsettling behavior in office?

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:35 PM

This does seem to be very disturbing.

The idea that the president can ignore laws at will is disturbing.

If this is a provision of presidential power that is outlined in the constitution, we may need to revisit it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JMB9039

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:50 PM

It is scary. I think a lot of Bush supporters forget that when they blindly support what he does, they are supporting a precident (one that future presidents can use and abuse) not just Bush. The Republican Party has put party loyalty above the well being of the American people. But ultimately, we only have ourselves to blame. We have the power to voice our opinions, to vote, etc.

It comes down to having intelligent voters. Voters who don't lie down for their party but stand up for what they think is right. Voters who think rather than follow.

In a democracy, the people are supposed to have the power - but we've let that go. We need to reclaim that power and hold our public servants accountable. When the VP shoots someone he shouldn't get the night to sleep it off - we wouldn't! When the president is acting recklessly, we should be able to force him to be accountalbe.

Ok, sorry for the rant...

JMB9039

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure if it's included in THIS article, but the latest - and breathtaking- abrogation of the law was shen Bush recently signed a bill inot law that had NOT been passed in the same form by both the House and Senate.

There is no way to justify that, if there is a single letter out of place, even a comma in one where a semicolon appears in the other, the bill is not allowed to become law.

Signing that into law is (legally) the same as signing into law something that didn't pass through the houses of congress in any form.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
It is scary. I think a lot of Bush supporters forget that when they blindly support what he does, they are supporting a precident (one that future presidents can use and abuse) not just Bush.
JMB9039

Hey, this isn't about Bush, for while he has abused this power, he did not set the precident. No, this existed before Bush, and it seems to me it ought not to exist at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

HERO

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't know how Bush supporters justify his actions to themselves, let alone how they justify it to others. It's really NOT "politics as usual", it's a naked and wholly unconstitutional (and I don't mean that metaphorically, Bush is breaking the law as set forth in the Constitution) power grab that could only be clearer if Bush refused to step down at the end of his term.

We support the President because we agree with his actions (I note for the record that there are also disagreements about what actions he did or did not take, I can fully support the actions I know of and reserve judgement for those I do not...as for those he didn't do but is often accused of, I neither support nor deny those actions) and we disagree that they are unconstitutional. Lots of Presidents have faced this particular charge. FDR is a good example of playing fast and loose with Constitutional authority in a time of crisis. Don't forget the 'switch in time' business. Or maybe Truman and the drafting of the striking miners.

Its all political. In the early days of Clinton a lot of the right-wing fringe had similar misgivings about Clinton and how he was going to suspend the Constitution and refuse to step down. Sure, Clinton sabotaged the Gore campaign and the economy in a blatent attempt to propel Hillary to power in 2004, but he were not the evil dictator the militia types feared.

In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11. But come the 20th of January, 2009 we'll be swearing in Hillary, Condi, Rudy, or some other person from one party or the other and Bush will retire to Texas to build his library, write his book, and perhaps ruin a business or two (great President, not so great businessman...not uncommon in our history).

H