Democrats & Liberals Archives

Suing the President

President George W. Bush has expressed his disdain for laws passed by Congress by first signing them and then issuing signing statements that negate what he had just signed. His actions have become so outrageous that a special task force of the American Bar Association has issued a report condemning this practice and asking Congress to pass legislation that will enable Congress to sue the president in order to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to act as referee.

In office since 2000, President Bush has vetoed only one piece of legislation. On the face of it, this may mean that during all this time he opposed only this one bill: enabling embyo stem cell research. However, during the same time, Bush has written over 800 signing statements. What does this mean? Did he approve the bills? Disapprove them? Was he trying to keep us in the dark? Or was he afraid to veto the legislation?

Congress has a right to receive from the president a YES vote or a VETO. Then it would know how to proceed. It is flagrant disregard of our constitutional system of checks and balances for the president to write in a signing statement that he would disregard what this law says if he thought it would conflict with his duties as commander-in-chief.

This is essentially what he wrote in his signing statement with reference to the torture amendment. He thumbed his nose at Congress. He said, I don't have to listen to you. Only I will decide whether torture is needed or not.

Is it any wonder that the head of the American Bar Association (ABA) appointed a special task force on signing statements? The chairman of the task force, Neal Sonnett, said this:

"It's clear that a large number of the signing statements that have been issued by this administration claim the authority to disregard the law. This president is not the first president to do that. But he clearly has escalated the practice to what the task force believes is a dangerous new high. That has an impact on the separation of powers, and if it's left unchecked, it could do damage to our system and to the Constitution."

The task force makes several recommendations. The most intriguing one is that Congress should pass legislation enabling it to seek judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court if the president issues a signing statement or other document that contradicts "the clear intent of Congress."

Arlen Specter, the judiciary committee chairman, during a hearing on the issue, said:

"There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statements far beyond the customary purviews. There's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes, excluding the provisions he doesn't like. . . . The president has the option under the Constitution to veto or not."

On the senate floor, Specter said:

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional."

Too bad we have reached this point. But we must maintain the integrity of our system. We have 3 equal branches of government. No branch should be allowed to usurp power that must be shared with the others. The president has a choice: sign or veto. He can't pick and choose parts of the bill he likes and other parts he does not like. He must act on the bill as a whole.

The president must be reined in. Congress must pass a bill that enables Congress to sue the president.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 26, 2006 5:19 PM
Comments
Comment #170889

The world is in flames of war, and again, THIS?

Posted by: nikkolai at July 26, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #170890

Well said, Paul.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 26, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #170896

THIS?

You mean the President over-riding Congressional oversight again? Isn’t he the one who keeps on about “an up or down vote”? He’s still pushing Immigration reform while “the world is in flames of war.”

Regardless of when it happens, tyranny must be stopped. Or are we fighting wars just for the fun of it?

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #170897

For more good reading on this, check out Dobbs on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dobbs.july26/index.html

“With upraised right hand and left hand on the Bible, each of our presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, has solemnly sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated that oath by issuing hundreds of “signing statements” to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.

A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.”

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #170900

GWB loves to set records. Signing statements, deficits…once the Dems win in Novemeber he can set another for most charges ever filed against a sitting president.

Posted by: David S at July 26, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #170902

I think we should sue him.
And we should join the War Crimes Court.
That’ll be a great test of just how good of a legal system we have.
I have little doubt that we could not prove GW did illegal things, and we should.
I also have little doubt that the US cannot defend a war crimes charge, and we should.

Lets give the great experiment a real test of it’s rule of law.

Posted by: Joe at July 26, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #170904

you can’t sue the government, and GW is part of the government. this is a non issue. again. by the way - EVERY president has been accused, at one time or another, of circumventing one law or another, or even many…..nothing ever comes of it. as for November, we’ll see……

Posted by: Ilsa at July 26, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #170907

“Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.”

yep, but they DID use them.

Posted by: Ilsa at July 26, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #170908

I second that Adrienne.

-Einghf

Posted by: einghf at July 26, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #170909

War crimes… you mean invading a sovereign country under false pretenses or violating the Geneva Convention?

I’m not sure we need to isolationists backlash if W were tried for war crimes…

Personally, I just want to get someone in there to replace him who can actually do the job. Right now, it’s kind of like having Erkle pitching for the Devil Rays.

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #170911

“you can’t sue the government”

Of course you can, it happens almost everyday. If you don’t like the way your city rezones a piece of property, and it violates the practices laid out for the city to follow, you can sue the government to reverse it’s decision (just a recent example here, 2 cities on the same day.)

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #170915

tony,

name one time someone sued a president, governor, senator, congressman, mayor, county sherif or even a local judge in connection to his or her elected position.

Posted by: Ilsa at July 26, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #170916

DavidS:

“…once the Dems win in Novemeber he can set another [record] for most charges ever filed against a sitting president.”

Not if Nancy Pelosi and the unseen powers behind the Democratic Party have their way. She (they) have taken impeachment off the table; too messy, I guess, and it would deter from the Democratic Party’s goals of getting the country heading in the right direction (whatever the hell that is).

Paul

This subject you’ve raised is second on my list of the most egregious policies of the Bush administration (Iraq being the first). That this blatant undermining of the Constitution has been allowed to progress to this point is shocking—who the hell is minding the store!? Who is keeping an eye on this administration?? It certainly isn’t Congress, and it certainly isn’t the press. Evidently, the voters are too busy with their jobs, summer cookouts and soccer games to give a damn. The entire country is out to lunch!

I always thought that one of the advantages of bureaucrats and paper pushers and career governmentists was their collective ability to gum up the works for any administration to get anything done. Yet, this administration has already done too much and we’ve got another two and a half years to go!

The Republicans have made an entire dog-and-pony show out of what they’ve had to ‘overcome’ from the dastardly Clinton administration. This country will need twenty or more years to correct the carnage this one administration has inflicted, from foreign policy, to economic policy
to social policy, energy policy, environmental non-policy, and fascist corporatism that has done irreperable harm to the workers and citizens of this country.

And if the world economy tanks, it may be generations before this country recovers from these irresponsible policies—if ever! See this:

http://counterpunch.com/kolko07262006.html

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 26, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #170922

Tim Crow,
EVERY administration claims that they have to “clean up” after the previous one. So what? The WWII generation was convinced that they did the right things, and their children complained, then we had Korea and it was “right” and their children complained, etc…….. I’m sure that whichever party takes the next election ( and lord, I hope it’s the republicans!) the previous administration will be villified, just as that adminsitration with also, in it’s turn, be villified. Look at history: Washington and Lincoln were not truely appreciated until long after thier deaths.

So rather than going on and on about how bad or wrong or how long it will take to clean up the mess, give us some real solutions to the problems that are doable and use common sense instead of rhetoric.

Ready? Go……

Posted by: Ilsa at July 26, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #170923

He as had more signing statements then ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED. WTF is that. This is the king at his best, sh*tting on our constitution and you have many republicans in the senate and house against this because they blindly follow the king instead of seeing what is actually going on. When will people wake the F*ck up and see what is happening to our country. We need a complete overhaul of the political system. REVOLUTION

Posted by: dee at July 26, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #170926

“name one time someone sued a president, governor, senator, congressman, mayor, county sherif or even a local judge in connection to his or her elected position.”

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1214526,00.html

Plame is suing quite a few government officials. This is different than suing the government - most of the time, officials are immune from personal prosecution from job duties. I’m pretty sure that is why the ABA is asking Congress to write legislation that allows the President to be sued.

Who cares if he gets sued or not - not sure what he would face personally. I would would much rather see Congressional legislation that forbids these “statements.” Congress writes the laws, and these signing statements are just temptation for the President to “rewrite” what Congress writes.

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #170927

Ilsa,

The “suing” of the president is really as quoted below:

“Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter’s bill would empower Congress bring to federal court lawsuits to test the constitutionality of Bush’s signing statements….”

It is not suing him personally or whatever, it is allowing Congress to enact a Judicial review of his actions.

Posted by: myles at July 26, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #170928

Ilsa:

“So rather than going on and on about how bad or wrong or how long it will take to clean up the mess, give us some real solutions to the problems that are doable and use common sense instead of rhetoric.”

Nah, I think I’ll take the official Democratic Party position—your Republican buddies have screwed the pooch on everything from Katrina to Iraq to the national debt. Your party has totally polarized the political scene by your vicious, your-with-us-or-you’re-against-us politics and smearing. Now you’re in a bit of a fix and want rational solutions. Even when every stand you make from Right-to-life to democracy in Iraq is riddled with irrational contradictions and fuzzy thinking.

Your party has had it their way for the last six years, and even longer. You made your bed, you lie in it.

How’s that for the good ‘ol American can-do spirit and team play and old-fashioned patriotism?

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 26, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #170929

Ilsa,

President Clinton as a sitting president was sued by Paula Jones. It spurred the whole Monica thing. There are other examples, I’m sure. Read about it here.

Paul,

Regarding your post, be careful with your language. Some of your wording makes your statements exaggerations if not outright lies. For example, his signing statements don’t “negate” the law he just signed. They contradict them, yes, but they have no legal bearing at all, so “negate” is misleading. Also, the bill he vetoed was not to enable stem cell research, it was to provide federal funding. I know this is nit-picky, but I hate it when the Republicans manipulate and obfuscate and I personally don’t thing we need to match their dishonorable behavior.

That said, I don’t support judicial reviews of signing statements. First of all, they have no legal bearing. He can say whatever he wants in them and it has no affect on the interpretation of the law.

I agree that the President is exercising more power than he is allowed under the constitution. We do have 3 equal branches of government, but reviewing signing statements is not the right way for the legislature to assert itself. Congress has the power to investigate. That’s what it should be doing. Unfortunately, with congress controlled by the Republicans, they have not done so.

Also, if the reviews of signing statements started to rule against the president, someone like W will just stop making the statements and doing whatever the hell he wants anyway.

From my perspective, what signing statements provide, however, is a roadmap to look for violations of the law. For example, if I made a public statement that certain parts of the tax law don’t apply to me, wouldn’t that make it easy for the IRS to know where to look to catch their next tax cheat?

I say that if the Democrats can win some power in November, they should just take a look at some of the signing statements and start some investigations. I’m sure a Kenneth Star kind of pit-bull could use these as clues: “Hmmm, he says anti-torture laws don’t apply to him? Let me take a look at what’s going on in the prisons.” Or, “Hmmm, he says FISA laws don’t apply to him? Let me take a look at some of these wire taps.”

I just hope we can get some balance in the federal government again soon!

Posted by: Jeff at July 26, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #170935

I think it’s edifying to see that while liberals oppose using the judicial system to oppose terrorists, captured enemy combatants, and treasonous journalists, they are overwhelmingly in favor of judicial attacks on the executive branch.

It would save time if libs just came out and said that the only thing they oppose is Bush.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 26, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #170936

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. If President Bush broke any laws he should be charged either criminally or civily. I’m sure there are some lawyer type people on the lift who would be chomping at the bit to charge him if there were evidence that he broke the law.

Until charges are brought against him this is all talk and spin. Fun, but still just talk and spin.

Posted by: tomd at July 26, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #170937

“liberals oppose using the judicial system to oppose terrorists, captured enemy combatants, and treasonous journalists”

No, that would be the Bush Administration - they’re the ones who did not want to use the judicial system. What “we liberals” oppose is making up a judicial system specifically for these people (aside from journalists) when a military tribunal is the established way to go. As far as journalists go - can you name a single one guilty of treason? (You might want to read over the Constitution before answering.)

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #170939

—-Tony—A sitting President can not be sued by the
public at large. Government entities can be sued only
if the Government agrees to being sued.

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #170940

DAVID -

I agree with that, and I think I was clear… this is why the ABA is asking for legislation to be written to allow these statements to be reviewed by the courts. (Don’t think I ever suggested that a President could be sued for job related activities… in a previous post.)

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #170941

As far as suing the government… it happens all the time,

http://www.easternwakenews.com/news/story/2966034p-9410024c.html

Just one of 2 stories from my area…

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #170945

tomd,

True, it is hard to convict someone without real proof. However, it is also hard for evidence to be found if congress doesn’t approve of an investigation. Without a special prosocutor, the president can keep all documents which might show guilt out of the peoples hands. ie: Valarie Plame. Without the special prosocutor investigating we would not ever had uncovered the memos and such that showed Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby new she was the wife of Wilson. They played dumb as long as they could, then when it was uncovered, Bush say’s oh I can declassify anything I want. Therefore no crime is committed.
Sorry about getting off on the Plame issue.
My point is the republicans don’t want us to know if any laws have been broken. They do not approve of a special prosocutor looking into Iraq or Katrina. Think back to Clinton and all his troubles with WhiteWater, FileGate, FosterGate etc. No real evidence, just alligations by the republicans (who were in charge of congress by the way) that Clinton had done something wrong. 50 million dollars later, Ken Starr (a republican by the way) found no evidence of any wroing dong by Bill or Hillary Clinton in regards to the alleged charges. Remember as mentioned by an above post, Clinton was sued by Paula Jones and the Lewinski matter came from that law suite.
Point being, with no lives lost, or any written proof of wrong doing (smoking gun), the republicans started an investigation. The same should be done here, but we know it will not happen.
By the way, if the Dems do take over the house in November, let the shredding begin.

Posted by: Rusty at July 26, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #170947

David,

A sitting President can not be sued by the
public at large?

I remember hearing things like this in civics class. But, if that’s the case, how could suit against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones proceed?

I remember hearing something about the Republican controlled congress voting to allow the suit to proceed while he was in office. Does anyone have any clear explanation of this apparent discrepancy between what David says is law and what we saw happen to Clinton?

Posted by: Jeff at July 26, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #170950

Jeff -

I did a little searching, and found this case - interesting.

“WASHINGTON, DC — A bipartisan group of 17 Members of Congress, including US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), filed a lawsuit on Friday, April 30, 1999, in federal court against President Bill Clinton for violating both the US Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regard to Yugoslavia.
Rep. Paul has led Congress in the opposing the unconstitutional military action, introducing the first legislation to stop the measure early in this Congress, and speaking against it last year.
“This president has violated the law and he must be taken to task,” said Rep. Paul. “It is a shame that Congress has not done more to stop the president from this destructive course. So it is therefore incumbent upon us to resort to the courts to force Mr. Clinton to follow his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
The lawsuit specifically states that the president violated Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, of the US Constitution by engaging in war without the declaration of such from Congress. The suit also notes that the president violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution for failing to officially report to Congress on his aggressive actions against Yugoslavia within the mandated forty-eight hours.”

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #170954

—-Like I said, as you said the Gov. voted to allow
the suit. Tony, sorry it missed you other article

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #170955

Paula Jones was sueing as an individual sueing a man for sexual harassment….he just happened to be president at the time. The incident happened before that. It had nothing to do with his presidency. As for Monica - he got on TV and lied to the public about something that happened during his term of office in the Oval Office while on the clock…… but I’ve always felt that it was more up to his wife to deal with that problem but that his lies to the public then made it our problem - but he wasn’t sued. But either way, the Congress can investigate, and the courts can make decisions of right or wrong, and the executive branch makes decisions that some people will never agree with - never. That’s politics/life. The ABA can ask for anything they want - doesn’t mean they’ll get it. The Dems can fantasize about “getting Bush” but for all intents and purposes, he doesn’t have to worry about reelection and will continue to prosecute the war in what he believes is the right way. You probably don’t agree, but he is the guy who won the election. Period. No president has ever been sued for making presidential decisions. Again, period.

Posted by: Ilsa at July 26, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #170956

tony,

what was the outcome of the suit against clinton? did it actually go anywhere? or was it dismised/dropped?

Posted by: Ilsa at July 26, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #170958

—-Tony- There have been only two cases of High Treason, one conviction the other was the case of
Arron Burr which was dismissed. there have 35-40
cases of treason an only a very few convictions

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #170959

Ilsa -

No idea - I’m guessing it was dropped.

As far as ABA getting what they want:

“WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, said yesterday that he is “seriously considering” filing legislation to give Congress legal standing to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws.

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, made his comments after a Judiciary Committee hearing on signing statements, which are official documents that Bush has used to challenge the constitutionality of more than 750 laws when signing legislation .
Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous presidents combined. But he has never vetoed a bill, depriving Congress of any chance to override his judgment. If Congress had the power to sue Bush, Specter said, the Supreme Court could determine whether the president’s objections are valid under the Constitution.”

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #170961

—Ilsa- Clinton was Impeached that is about the only
choice with the President.

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #170964

——and they impeached him for a lie-

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #170965

Yes, that’s what we need more of in this country, another law suit … especially one threatened in the direction of GWB, Rumsfeld, & Rice. What a novel, or rather, trite idea. Yes! Let’s take up their time with such nonsense. I can think of no better thing to do in today’s world. I mean, it’s not like there’s a lot going on right now anyway.

Sue! Sue!! Sue!!! Yippeee!!! Go lawyers go! Another brilliant “Let’s solve issues of the day” idea from the left.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 26, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #170967

DAVID -

I think in this case, treason is just a good & nasty political spit wad to toss at opponents of the various questionable programs & practices currently in operation. I’m guessing the person who brought up treason is also thinking that the Supreme Court is a bunch of “activist judges” - even though all but 2 were appointed by REPs.

I’m trying to find the article, which basically states the cases in which a journalist should be legally prosecuted. It basically states that they should not. I’m thinking it was the rules of conduct for the Attorney General…???

Basically, freedom of the press has the upper hand - “especially in times of war”, I think that’s the basic wording.

I was rebutting what someone else had stated with “terrorists, and treasonist journalists.” Something to that effect.

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #170969

“Sue! Sue!! Sue!!! Yippeee!!! Go lawyers go! Another brilliant “Let’s solve issues of the day” idea from the left.”

—- from the party that brought 2 full weeks of discussion on gay marriage and flag burning.

” especially one threatened in the direction of GWB, Rumsfeld, & Rice.”

I’m guessing this is about the Plame law suit - that’s 2 individuals, not a political party. The law suit being discuss here is about the President ignoring Constitutional boundaries.. this one is being brought up by a REP. I know it helps you to dismiss everything by blaming it all on the DEMs, but neither case fits here.

Posted by: tony at July 26, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #170973

Ken Strong

Yea, instead of worrying about the abuse of presidential powers and the end of checks and balances between the branches of government as provided for in the constitution, lets make sure we save the sanctity of marriage from being threatened by gay couples and lets make sure those left over cells in that petrie dish over there gets flushed down the toilet.

And lets make sure no one tells Arlen Specter( the Senator who personaly saw to it that Clarence Thomas became a Supreme Court Justice) that he is a lefty liberal.

Posted by: mark at July 26, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #170974

—Tony— I totally agree with you, First, the
Republicans, would have to Impeach President Bush,
or charge him with High Crimes an Misdemeanors, an
He can not be charged with Treason which comes
under article 13 in the constitution, Wage WAR
against America, or aide or give comfort to the enemy. Can you suggest something else we can do.

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #170975

I am fairly certain Ilsa is right. Most public officials are indemnified from action taken while performing their official duties.

The fact that Bush was chosen by the Republican party as the best they had to offer speaks volumes.

Unfortunately for us, the fact he was elected speaks volumes also.

Posted by: 037 at July 26, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #170977

Ken Strong
Isn’t that what the Republicans were doing while Clinton was bombing OBL and trying to stop the carnage in E.Europe?

Posted by: 037 at July 26, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #170978

Speaking of sueing can we charge the president for treason. He did just tell the enemy about our forth comming troop movements from kuwait to Baghdad. Just think what would happen if the NYT did this.

Posted by: 037 at July 26, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #170979

Dee,
Thank you!

Ilsa,
‘EVERY administration claims that they have to “clean up” after the previous one.’

The next administration will have to clean up after: wars(I hope our vets get better care & treatment than vietnam vets did), civil rights violations(arrests of protesters, domestic spying, torture, etc), environmental issues(ANWR, rejection of Kyoto Protocols, etc), disaster indifference, fiscal irresponsibility, corruption(Enron, Halliburton, Big Oil, Diebold voting machines, etc), and other issues too numerous to list.

What did Bush have to clean up after, besides a little spooge? And most of that was on Monica’s dress(and tongue.)

Revolt! For our lives and our children’s future are at stake and under imminent threat!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 26, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #170980

—-I think we really need to get on them about the
voting machines, A county here had 15% malfunction
of all their electronic machines. One third or
8.000 of our counties will be using new machines,
this fall, an most of the people in charge of these machines are new as will the poll workers brought
in on election day, that is going to be a mess.

Posted by: DAVID at July 26, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #170987

Ha! I love it. No real answers to my post, just “Uhhh, you guys tried to do it to Clinton!”

Yes, and Bush Sr. was sued, and Reagan, and I can’t think of any in particular but I’m sure Carter was sued about something.

Anyway, it’s nice to see the democrats have viewed the moral highground and are running 180 degrees away from it.

All in all though, I think it’s fair to say there’s more going on in the world right now than during your Joe Average Presidency. But I just wasted my breath saying that because it here it comes: “It’s Bush’s fault there’s Islamist extremism! Bush set up 9/11 for his own benefit!!! Bush is Hitler!! I’m a left of left field liberal!! There’s nothing else to say because I have no answers!!! So there!!!”

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 26, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #170989

Start Twilight Zone Music …

I totally agree with you, First, the
Republicans, would have to Impeach President Bush, or charge him with High Crimes an Misdemeanors, an He can not be charged with Treason which comes under article 13 in the constitution, Wage WAR against America, or aide or give comfort to the enemy. Can you suggest something else we can do.”

End Twilight Zone Music …

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 26, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #170991


Question: Who would bring the lawsuit and what would be alleged? Anyone filing suit against another(Jones v Clinton, Plame v ?, Wilson v ?) must have a valid claim of damages. In the case of ? v Bush, who would have standing in court and what damage claim would be made?

I would suppose in a general sense, any citizen might file the suit but it would be a legal nightmare and could draq on for years if not decades.

Why not wait and see what happens in November. If enough Democrats are fortunate enough to win, then start the investigations and see if there is truly a basis for a lawsuit or impeachment proceedings. Of course, by the time it’s wrapped up, Bush et al will be out of iffice and probably so will many of the Democrats.

Posted by: John Back at July 26, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #170998

We cannot wait to rid ourselves and our beautiful nation of the tyranny and deceit which this disgraceful administration has brought to the feet of America. We are all like the silent witnesses of a world ghetto being built by those who profit from the bloodied, dead and dying in bogus wars for oil and resources which are the worlds to share. Bush must now be censored or impeached. His arrogance, folly, treacherous form of catastrophe capitalism robs all and enriches only those who obey and are duped by their false rhetoric, false actions and deception. These former members of a shadow government now reinstalled in the Bush Administration were never stopped and are now far worse than those who brought Iran Contras lying to Congress and selling all types of contras ban to whomever in order to make crisis in order to make money, not peace. Now our children and the children of the world inherit this malicious mind set of a non human form which comprises the Bush administation. IT IS time that we awaken. We are witnessing a world catastrophe of our own making. The world is on the verge of total ecological, cultural collapse. We are witnessing to a self made apocalypse and we are all part of its making.
The Tree of Life of which Jew, Christian, Muslim are of one shared history has been misused and abused by a minority who are truly evil human beings. The people of the world expect America to be the lifeline of the world and not the bearer of a culture of death of children dying for needless reasons because of the moral and just need of an administration, no matter what party, which speaks out before the FINAL SOLUTION is one big holocaust which will engulf all and everyone because of a few who have so grossly misused, absued, betrayed the principles of democracy at home and abroad.
We must stop this madness now.

Posted by: Diane at July 26, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #170999

Ken,

Yes, that’s what we need more of in this country, another law suit … especially one threatened in the direction of GWB, Rumsfeld, & Rice. What a novel, or rather, trite idea. Yes! … Sue! Sue!! Sue!!! Yippeee!!! Go lawyers go! Another brilliant “Let’s solve issues of the day” idea from the left [???].

It’s not the liberals nor the Dems doing this - it’s Specter, a Conservative Republican.

…Let’s take up their time with such nonsense. I can think of no better thing to do in today’s world. I mean, it’s not like there’s a lot going on right now anyway.

And it’s not like they don’t have enough nonsense filling their time (and minds) already!

Posted by: myles at July 26, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #171007

David & Jeff-

The important thing about the Paula Jones case was that the Supreme Court did indeed allow Clinton to be sued by a private citizen while in office. While he argued that previous precedent indicated he could only be sued once out of office, the court voted narrowly to allow the case to go forward.

So what David is saying is that a citizen can only sue a governmental entity where that government has expressly assumed a duty. By taxing you and creating public works projects for the greater good, the courts didn’t want lawyers bankrupting the municipalities and governments later with suits. There’s a lot more to it, but both are true. Clinton, in the Jones case, was not considered a governmental entity, but rather another private citizen.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #171012

Christianleft:

“Revolt! For our lives and our children’s future are at stake and under imminent threat!”

And I thought I was the only one thinking revolution…:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 27, 2006 2:55 AM
Comment #171013

Diane:

Your post is obviously heartfelt—and I very much sympathize with your feelings of betrayal and foreboding.

Please impress upon your friends to vote Democratic this November. I really believe it’s the only chance we will have to right this listing ship of state.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 27, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #171015

This country is heading for a revolution. I have felt this way for a long time during this administration.

BTW: Today’s news is that the U.S. is sending $30 million dollars to Lebanon. What about our own backyard and our own oppressed people? Good lord, Louisianna is still hanging in the wind. We gave millions in aid to the Tsunami victims and their families. Though I sympathize with those in need, it is OUR nation’s people, health insurance administration and other issues that are being surupticiously kicked under the rug.

And why on earth can’t we all get along? Talk about a country divided! This administration is a mess, and it is corrupt. We are in a police state of sorts.

I think the DEMS are lying-in-wait; we’ll see when the next election comes along. I’ve had enough of the REPS thug-and-mug administration.

This nation’s citizens are going to get a belly-full (if they haven’t already) and there will be a revolution. Maybe not in my time, but I see this happening.

There’s more I’d like to say but very big men in very black coats would be standing on my doorstep. What First Amendment right?

Posted by: Lynne at July 27, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #171016

Diane wrote

“We are witnessing to a self made apocalypse and we are all part of its making.”

————————————————————————

I’m afraid I have to agree. Financially (/economically) and socially we are on edge of meltdown due to huge imbalances - abstract as well as tangible - propped up under the Bush administration.

Just stepping back a little and viewing the world through the eyes of democracy - “government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” - you have to wonder whether the Bush administration is doing “the right stuff for y’all folks”.

If you think the U.S. and “American Values” are all what count in the world and that everything else might as well be blown to bits/regime changed/turned into humanitarian disaster you probably agree with this administration.

If you think - as I do - that you need a world that is not extremely polarised by cowboy rethorics and unilateral action to maintain a sustainable foundation for future well-being for us, our children and grandchildren… maybe we should start admitting we have been wrong the last few years. Problem is Ordinary Joe has been brainwashed far beyond recognition into believing that admitting you are wrong equals “being extremely unpatriotic”, hence blocking every form of learning process.

According to a poll from the respectable Forsa Institute, 45 % of Germans call the U.S. a “greater threat to world peace” than Iran. 28 % think that Iran is a greater threat. For 16 %, the U.S. and Iran pose identical threats, as Spiegel and Davids Medienkritik report.

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/299-Poll-45-of-Germans-consider-U.S.-more-dangerous-than-Iran.html\

PS: Germany is not a muslim country.

Posted by: Josh at July 27, 2006 4:01 AM
Comment #171025

Voting in November would be a waste of time. Remember, Bush & Co. stole the last two Presidential elections (and we’re not even sure about the Congressional elections)…

IMPEACH THEM ALL NOW AND START FROM SCRATCH!!!

Posted by: a2phil at July 27, 2006 5:11 AM
Comment #171028

Josh:

You’re right Germany is not a Muslim country. As a matter of fact, the red-lace, Doc Martin crowd is gearing up to further reduce the Muslim influence in Germany. You should also note that Germany no longer has a Jewish problem.

Great little problem solvers, those Germans.

It is also noteworthy that Germany was hip deep with France and Russia in the Oil for Food scandal with many illegal weapons contracts and personal gifts of oil vouchers going their way from Saddam. We should definitely take our cue in world diplomacy from them.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 27, 2006 5:22 AM
Comment #171031

“Yes, that’s what we need more of in this country, another law suit … especially one threatened in the direction of GWB, Rumsfeld, & Rice. What a novel, or rather, trite idea. Yes! Let’s take up their time with such nonsense. I can think of no better thing to do in today’s world. I mean, it’s not like there’s a lot going on right now anyway.
Sue! Sue!! Sue!!! Yippeee!!! Go lawyers go! Another brilliant “Let’s solve issues of the day” idea from the left.”

“Ha! I love it. No real answers to my post…”

Honestly Ken Strong you should be more careful with sarcasm, the strongest tool of the weakest minds. The post to which you wish response was so moronic as to border on idiocy… who would have thought you were serious?

Let me preface a response with an acknowledgement that bush HAS indeed done some worthwhile things in his years in office. His immediate response to 9/11 was dead on target and impressive. The increase in funding for AIDS research to which he lays claim is very good. I’m sure if we all tried hard enough we could find SOME measure of good to come from this administration. Perhaps another good thing that will eventually come of it is a re-emphasis on the division of powers of the branches of the federal government.

Now then, back to your post. Is there a lot going on right now anyway? Hell yeah, and a lot of it is very very bad, and MOST of the bad stuff is, if not bushes fault by commission, certainly his fault by ommission. But that’s just my opinion. And THAT is what lawsuits are all about. To decide who’s opinion is right and whose is wrong.

I suspect that you know in your heart of hearts that bush is piece of shit who should be pounding rocks in the heat of the southern sun as part of a chain gang, otherwise you would not oppose legal proceedings against him so much. I wonder, when people suggest litigation against the president, whether it be in the form of impeachment, war crime tribunal, or civil suit, I wonder, “What ever happened to bushes ‘BRING IT ON!’ philosophy?”

And what about the rest of you right wingers who support and vote for this piece of shit? Have you no faith in him? Why aren’t YOU standing up and shouting, “YES GODDAMMIT, LET’S BRING THIS TO COURT. WE’LL SHOW YOU WHO’S RIGHT!!!”?

Posted by: Thom Houts at July 27, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #171037

What a mess. Good luck with all this come November. The left brings nothing to the table. Many of us conservatives are less than satisfied with the way things are being run. But, the dems leave us no alternative. Gloom and doom just doesn’t sell in America…..

Posted by: nikkolai at July 27, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #171041

Paul,

“Congress has a right to receive from the president a YES vote or a VETO.”

I find this a very ironic statement from the party who refuses to give judicial appointments a fair UP or DOWN vote.

When you point a finger at someone…there are three pointing back at you.

Posted by: Jim T at July 27, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #171043

“The left brings nothing to the table. “

- minimum wage

- real solutions for education

- international diplomacy (i.e., work with everyone involved to help solve the Middle East crisis, not just the ones we agree with.)

- zero tolerance for corruption (OK, this is much more of a “every voter has to pressure our leaders” kind of thing, but I know I will never rally the troops behind criminals - or make excuses for them. If you’re indicted, you have to go home.)

- Put FEMA back on it’s own again, where it can do what is needed.

- Focus on actually creating alternative energy sources - rather than giving grants to the oil industry to find some solution when it fits their budget forecasts. (Also known as finding real world solutions to cut off funding to Middle East terrorists - not “secret” ways that have yet to see true results.)

- Focus on creating living wages for lower income people to move them off government programs - and give the a graduated approach to leaving… help with health care and day care so that parent/s can actually work.

- Health Care options that will provide for everyday needs - to prevent disaster response-only style of health care for the poor. (Way cheaper.)

- support the troops at home. Family care, decent schools for their children, living wages, medical help to reintegrate the soldiers into society. (I’ve seen the way our soldiers and their families live today, and it’s an embarrassment.) Supporting the troops means more than finding ways for them to kill & be killed.

- get rid of government subsidies for oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Yea, it was expensive to drill there when oil was $25 a barrel - but it’s now around $70 a barrel. Why give companies subsidies for making record profits?

- create new “manhattan project” for reducing Greenhouse gases. Makes home, cars, industry more energy efficient - saves money - limits impact from global warming.

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #171044

“I find this a very ironic statement from the party who refuses to give judicial appointments a fair UP or DOWN vote.”

Wow - even after both Supreme Court nominees are on the SCOTUS, you guys still bitch about having to work to get what you want done? Overall, less than 2% of all Bush’s judicial nominees have been given the job (more than any other President) and you still whine about how bad you guys have it. Please… your side has had everything it needs given to it, and it still can not find even minimal success.

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #171047

So, the legality of “signing statements” depends on which party the President belongs to?

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #171050

kctim -

So you want to ignore the issue with political party spin? Come on, the issue is that the President is trying to accomplish a line item veto (which has been ruled unconstitutional) with signing statements. I do not care who has done it in the past, but since Bush has used it so often, it has come out into the light and I think the practice is chicken-shit politics. …don’t work to get what you want, just add some notes to the legislation and worry about it later.

If he does not like the legislation, a President should work with Congress to make it right. Bush has proven himself worthless when working with others, so this has become his mode of operation. Don’t work with others, don’t look like you’re voting against popular legislation - just add your own spin, just in case…??? It’s crap politics and should have nothing to do with partisanship - it should be everyone’s concern.

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #171051

no kctim, the legality of signing statements are NOT dependant on the party of the president, the legality of signing statements are dependant on THE LEGALITY OF THE SIGNING STATEMENTS. Of the 800 signing statements made by that piece of shit in the white house, I’ll bet many of them, maybe even MOST of them, are legal and serve to clarify the intent of the bill being signed. And THOSE would stand up to judicial review, just as the 600 signing statements of all the previous presidents would probably stand up to judicial reveiw. I think it would be too bad if signing statements were outlawed just because that cocksucker abused his power for the purpose of expanding his power at the expense of the other two branches of government.

Again I say, if bush feels his signing statements are legal and constitutional, then there should be no problem with a judicial review. Let him prove how wrong we liberals are.

Posted by: Thom Houts at July 27, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #171052

——The biggest problem with the signing statements
is that your president Bush wrote more than 800
changes to the Constitution than did all the other
Presidents put together, maybe you can figure how
to spin these facts, This would be the first
attempt in determining if changing the Constitution
is legal, and I am the opinion the Constitution
was not designed for one person to alter or make
changes in order to enhance his own ego, or what
ever his reasons might be!

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #171054

… as oppose to other unConstitutional issues that Bush is facing, I don’t see how he can claim this one is related to National Security… just plain ‘ole diplomatic incompetence.

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #171055

——An by the way legal, the President can only
approve these or veto them he can not change them!
We probably won’t see Senator Specter’s plans
for his law suit(with the Republicans in control)
ever see the light of day!

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #171056

—-Tony—good job, some bird up the post aways, is
talking about the twilight zone, yak yak guess some folks can’t get serious about serious state of
affairs were in.

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #171059

Hmmmm, I guess questioning the power of the Executive Branch IS dependent on whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican:

“Shortly after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12954 in an attempt to achieve through executive fiat what he could not achieve through legislation. Clinton claimed authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (the “Procurement Act”)32 to require all large government contractors, which employed roughly 22 percent of the labor force, to agree not to hire permanent replacements for lawfully striking employees.”

“The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously overturned the executive order and the implementing regulations that had been issued by the Secretary of Labor.33 The court first determined that it had jurisdiction over the case despite what the court described as President Clinton’s “breathtakingly broad claim of non-reviewability of presidential actions.”

Please note that this comes from a February 21, 2001 Heritage Foundation article:

The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm

It’s a rather long read but very worthwhile.

So, to the Republicant’s that want us to stop picking on poor wittle Georgie, I say, “hello Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot”.

KansasDem

PS: I just have to add this quote from the aforementioned article:

“The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
—James Madison, Federalist 46

Posted by: KansasDem at July 27, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #171061

Would this lawsuit also include judges who would ignore laws and chose to issue verdicts contrary to what the law deems appropriate? The majority of these have been democratic pundits. Just wondering since this lawsuit should be applied equally across the board.

KansasDem

Great Quote! Seriously, The main reason I want to see democratics remain equally strong with Republicans. I truly hope they can get their act together. The more we can decentralize power the better.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 27, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #171062

“Voting in November would be a waste of time.”

a2phil,

Noooooooooo! There’s far too much voter apathy already. I believe that’s played a large part in allowing the Neo-Cons to rise to power.

Vote, vote, vote! Every time there’s an election vote. It’s our duty as Americans!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 27, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #171063

goodkingned wrote:

“Josh:

You’re right Germany is not a Muslim country. As a matter of fact, the red-lace, Doc Martin crowd is gearing up to further reduce the Muslim influence in Germany. You should also note that Germany no longer has a Jewish problem.

Great little problem solvers, those Germans.

It is also noteworthy that Germany was hip deep with France and Russia in the Oil for Food scandal with many illegal weapons contracts and personal gifts of oil vouchers going their way from Saddam. We should definitely take our cue in world diplomacy from them.”

———————————————————————-

- Germany currently is at least as good a popular democratic nation as the U.S. is, by all known standards. It has over the last few years seen uprisings in both right and left-wing extremism, just like the U.S.

- The German people didn’t plan and execute the Oil for Food scheme, just like the American people had little hand in Iran-Contra, or long-term support of the Taliban movement and Saddam Hussein before going at them decisively post-9/11.

Basically, I’m not at all implying we should just “take our cue in world diplomacy from them”. I just find the other side of the story very helpful in understanding why things aren’t going our way in the world at large.

Posted by: Josh at July 27, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #171064

Ilsa-

what was the outcome of the suit against clinton? did it actually go anywhere? or was it dismised/dropped?

The Paula Jones case was dropped for lack of evidence. But Clinton was charged with purgery and lost his license to practice law for a number of years.(I can’t remember how long). Not that he would have any use for that now anyway.

DAVID-

Clinton was Impeached.

Yes, Clinton was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate. That means he was found not guilty, everyone seems to forget that.


Posted by: Lil Sue at July 27, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #171065

—(I thought two thirds of the voters
in every state had to approve all changes, or adding
Amendments, or change the Constitution .)
Would I be right or wrong in this statement?

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #171067

Lil Sue—You are correct, thanks for bring that point out, I had forgotten.

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #171068

Unfortunately, lawsuits like this one are sometimes necessary to codify long-standing unwritten policies or to clarify ambiguous laws.

In Wisconsin, several years ago, the then Dem controlled State Assembly sued then Gov Tommy Thompson over his use/overuse of the line-item veto. We all knew the line-item veto was legal in Wisconsin. Gov Thompson took it to new extremes that were neither specifically permitted or prohibited in the law. A court test was the only avenue to resolve the dispute.

These types of suits are many times not negative in nature, but serve to clarify ambiguity. In the above case, there really was not much of an adversarial pitch to the case. More so, it was understood by both parties that clarification was needed, and both agreed to the result.

In the Bush case, I don’t think either side should look at this as negative. Bush took a long standing policy of comments to an extreme which is neither specifically permitted nor prohibited. Both sides should look at this as clarification of law/policy and abide by the ruling. Keep in mind, this ruling will not apply to Bush alone, but to all presidents to come. Sometimes, political parties, in all their furor to show up their opposition, lose sight of that.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 27, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #171076

Tony
“So you want to ignore the issue with political party spin?”

Not at all. I’m just curious as to why some people are just NOW disagreeing with them.

DAVID
“The biggest problem with the signing statements
is that your president Bush wrote more than 800
changes to the Constitution than did all the other
Presidents put together, maybe you can figure how
to spin these facts”

No need to “figure” out how to spin the facts, they are obvious: Alot of Presidents have issued signing statements but you guys are only demanding “justice” for Bush doing it.

KDem
“So, to the Republicant’s that want us to stop picking on poor wittle Georgie, I say, “hello Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot””

I’m not sure what the Republicans want, but I could care less how much you pick on Bush. I’m just curious as to why the left didn’t care about this stuff in 95? but NOW, in 06 with a Republican president, they are.


Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #171077

“I’m just curious as to why the left didn’t care about this stuff in 95? but NOW, in 06 with a Republican president, they are.”

kctim -

I think you’re under a wrong assumption here. Me personally, until recently I had no idea that a President had anything like a signing statement… and I’m betting most people heard of it initially with the anti-torture legislation. I’d be willing to bet that there is little factual support for assuming that DEMs supported this practice ever. (Of course, had some known about them, and knew a DEM was doing it, yes - many people would support it because both parties are invested with YES-men.)

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #171079

I think what should be of the greatest concern is not just the number of signing statements but the actual substance of the same. I quote here from a
Jan. 30, 2006 Slate magazine:

[Professor Phillip W. Cooper cites], “82 instances in which Bush disputed the bill’s constitutionality because Article II of the Constitution does not permit any interference with his “power to supervise the unitary executive.” That’s not an objection to some act of Congress. That’s an objection to Congressional authority itself.”

“Similarly, Cooper counted 77 claims that as president, Bush has “exclusive power over foreign affairs” and 48 claims of “authority to determine and impose national security classification and withhold information.” Bush consistently uses these statements to prune back congressional authority and even—as he does in the McCain statement—to limit judicial review. He uses them to assert and reassert that his is the last word on a law’s constitutional application to the executive.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/

Now, this bears repeating: “He uses them to assert and reassert that his is the last word on a law’s constitutional application to the executive.”

This should concern every American. If the true well being of America is less important to any one of us than political party affiliation or any other personally held beliefs, then I fear we are truly lost.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 27, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #171083

nikkolai,

I suppose your motto then is “stay the course”?

Go ahead, put them back in power….don’t come crying later though.

Posted by: Tom L at July 27, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #171088

“I’m just curious as to why the left didn’t care about this stuff in 95? but NOW, in 06 with a Republican president, they are.”

kctim,

Howdy neighbor, IMO we should actually ask why we didn’t hear more about the increase in usage of signing statements during the Reagan years:

“Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan).”

That also comes from the previously cited Slate article. You’ll get no argument from me that our system has purely gone to s—- in the past few decades. And just like a snowball rolling downhill this sucker keeps getting bigger and picking up speed. Only it’s not a snowball, it’s a giant s—tball (not softball either) and we’re all gonna get splattered if we don’t get a handle on things.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 27, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #171101

Tony
Fair enough. Maybe some never heard of them before, I don’t know. I just remember hearing about clintons signing statments and how pissed some were about them.

KDem
Not to be a smartass or anything, but if you agree that our system has gone “purely to sh— in the past few decades,” then how can you keep supporting one half of who is responsible for it?

The biggest problem with our country isn’t what the politicians do, its what the people won’t do.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #171113

I hear GW signed the voting rights act extension today. I wonder if he had a “signing statement” with this one….hmmm?

Posted by: Tom L at July 27, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #171119

“I am signing to extend the voting rights acts, but I reserve the rights to prevent certain individuals or groups I do not like from voting.”

???

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #171130

kc,

I don’t remember any debate about signing statements during Clintons tenure. You probably are hearing some (R)wing pundit rewrite of history to take some heat off Bushie by making up more crap about Willie.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #171133

—-kctim—- I have known Presidents had used
signing statements for years, the problem, no one
has brought them into the light until I saw what
President Bush was doing with them.
1-justification of knowingly wire taping all, calls
not just the bad guys.
2- I will not discuss the rest, because they haven’t
been challenged yet, however I know enough about
Constitutional law an the constitution, to know what
constitutes legal an illegal activity.
I do think any President has a responsibility
to keep the citizens safe, I do not believe we have reached the point, where spying on average
Americans is justifiable, checks an balances must be maintained at all coasts. At no time has
a nation which has absolute power not gone on to
become a corrupt Dictatorship or Kingdom, an the
citizens of those countries most likely felt they
were immune from a great travesty come over them.
I always believe an once of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure!

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #171143

Kctim-

You do realize that Bush has used “signing staements” - which are designed to be used by courts to justify their decisions when they appear to go against the spirit of the law - more in 51/2 years than ALL other presidents combined?

I think this is VERY significant seeing as how he hadn’t used his veto power one time until last week. The NY Times had a great editorial on this recently.

Posted by: kevin23 at July 27, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #171157

Kevin
Whether you do it a hundred times or a thousand times, you’ve still done it.

As they do with a lot of issues, the left ignores or excuses when they do it but want the people to wake up and react when the right does the same thing.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #171160

“As they do with a lot of issues, the left ignores or excuses when they do it but want the people to wake up and react when the right does the same thing.”

Again - please provide proof. You continue to bat this assumption around, and I would love to see you prove it.

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #171169

KansasDem:

“If the true well being of America is less important to any one of us than political party affiliation or any other personally held beliefs, then I fear we are truly lost.”

This is a simple and powerful statement. What are we willing to sacrifice, to compromise on, to surrender to, for the good of our country?

Are we as individuals willing to lose face, to assuage our belligerence, to curb our anger, to mollify our nastiness, for the greater good?

Are the stakes too high, the money too big, the power too urgent, our egos too raging, to raise our sights a little higher for the greater good?

These are investigations within that we all must make. I know that I have failed many times on this blog to keep in mind the good of the nation and it’s people—to make some ridiculous point that is usually unread.

It’s a very good thing I don’t have power.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #171173

kctim—-From your post, I assume you are in agreement
with all President Bush’s actions. If that is the
case you than believe outing an active CIA agent
and the company working with the the agent. The loss
of nine Billion Dollars in Iraq. I could fill
fill this page, but if you can defend just these
items, be my guest, No spin allowed.

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #171175

“Not to be a smartass or anything, but if you agree that our system has gone “purely to sh— in the past few decades,” then how can you keep supporting one half of who is responsible for it?”

kctim,

Nothing at all “smartass” about your question.

My answer is:

It’s impossible to throw out the whole works at once but the sooner we get started the better. That doesn’t particularly mean getting rid of any party. If any one party fails enough of the people over a period of time that party might fail, either temporarily, or forever.

The one thing that’s absolutely necessary is voters being involved and engaged in the process, whether it’s simply going to the voting booth, or actually getting involved on a grassroots basis, or beyond. The government is OUR government.

As memory serves me you’re Libertarian (if I’m mistaken I apologize), and while I disagree with many of your opinions I assume that not all Libertarians agree on every issue. The same is true of the Democratic Party and, while I hate to admit it, I’m sure that is still true of the Republican party also.

This is where the principles put forward by David Remer and d.a.n. come into play. In most instances, not all but most, each of us have the opportunity to express ourselves by voting. Far too many Americans fail to vote. Apathy and complacency have become the norm.

Beyond voter apathy and complacency American’s have all but forgotten the influence of civil disobedience. Protest if you must! Write “letters to the editor” of your local and area newspapers. Make your voice heard. You can do so legally.

Me, I’m still a Democrat. I’ve looked at the other options and I’ll continue to try and bring the Democratic Party back in line with what I believe the direction of the Democrats and America should be.

You wouldn’t agree at all with that direction, nor would I agree with yours but I’d still rather hunt along side you than I would Cheney.

Does that answer your question?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 27, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #171179

“Again - please provide proof. You continue to bat this assumption around, and I would love to see you prove it”

Again? Sorry if I didn’t answer before Tony.
Fear was used to scare people so that our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights could be violated. The left thinks its ok to violate rights they do not agree with and either excused, defended or ignored clinton for doing it.
Fear was used to scare people so that our 4th Amendment rights could be violated. NOW the left wants our rights protected. HA!

We were told of the mass graves in kosovo that had hundreds of thousands of bodies. Sure they have found some mass graves, but not according to what was sold to the people. Our soldiers were sent to fight against an enemy that was not a threat to the US. But the left still thinks clinton is a god for doing the humanitarian thing.
We were told of WMD’s in Iraq, hasn’t panned out. But, many mass graves have been found, like in kosovo. The left, chooses to ignore the humanitarian part of Iraq and tries to keep WMD’s as the ONLY reason we went into Iraq.

Johnny Chung and China didn’t happen; Abramhoff (s?) proves ALL Republicans are corrupt.

Rumsfeld should have been fired because of the actions of rouge soldiers humiliating prisoners in Abu G. But reno had no reason to resign or be fired when INNOCENT Americans, men-women-children, were murdered by US govt agencies acting according to her orders.

Bush is a right wing Christian zealot trying to force religion onto everybody and create a theocracy? How many times have you seen Bush on TV, surrounded by ministers or in church? How many times did you see or hear of clinton attending a church or talking with jackson, sharpton or other religious people?

I could keep going Tony, but I think you can see that alot of the very same things being said about Bush today by the left, were said about clinton by the right.
It just depends if one wants to only look at the lefts view or just the rights view or the WHOLE picture.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #171183

DAVID
“From your post, I assume you are in agreement
with all President Bush’s actions”

Why?

If that is the case you than believe outing an active CIA agent and the company working with the the agent. The loss of nine Billion Dollars in Iraq. I could fill this page, but if you can defend just these items, be my guest, No spin allowed”

Well, I don’t remember ever defending either of these really.
Plame? Why not let the investigations decide?
$9 billion lost in Iraq? Is this part of the Haliburton deal? Hell, investigate that too. Govt waste and favortism is rampant.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #171187

KDem
I have no idea if I’m a Libertarian or not :)
I’m to the left of liberals on some issues and to the right of Republicans on some issues. I’m a very confused dude.

“I’ll continue to try and bring the Democratic Party back in line with what I believe the direction of the Democrats and America should be”

Fair and honest answer. Thank you.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #171192

“The left thinks its ok to violate rights they do not agree with and either excused, defended or ignored clinton for doing it.”

“But the left still thinks clinton is a god for doing the humanitarian thing.”

kctim -

Again, these are assumptions you have not proven. I don’t buy them for a second. And, you’re actually trying to compare Kosovo with Iraq??? Seriously???

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #171198

Kctim-

You are very defensive. I am not saying these signing statements are a bad thing, an evil tool, or anything of the sort. I AM saying that it is not just the left making waves when people say that Bush has employed unprecedented techniques which serve one purpose: to increase the power of the executive branch. Every peice of legislation he sees first gets screened by Cheney’s office for violations of the “Unitary Executive Theory”. If you are unfamiliar with this term, google it and you’ll quickly see it is considered revolutionary in American politics by most scholars…and not in a good way. Bush does not just simply do what other president has done before him, he is expressly looking to undermine any language in any bill which requires more than just the will of the executive branch in order to exercise power.

This is not a secretive thing either. It is a hot topic among legal scholars, the vast majority of whom feel it is a violation of the constitution. But in America, the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and I think you’ll see why Dems were using every trick they could muster to shed light on the appointments of people like Roberts and Alito.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #171199

Bush’s favorite justice upon taking office (Scalia) said once that anyone who is not an “originalist” is an “idiot”. Yet, I challenge anyone to find in the constitution where it says the executive has power over all non-domestic matters. It isn’t there. So does that make Scalia an idiot, or just a hypocrite? And this is the guy who is the poster child for all Bush’s appointments? Yikes.

For example, Bush and Cheney believe that when the constitution says “Only Congress has the power to declare war”, that merely means that congress gets to decide whether or not to call it a “war”.

I’ve actually read the constitution (a few thousand times) and I am pretty sure that the original intent was to make it so that one branch, ESPECIALLY the executive branch, could never yield that sort of power. But I’m sure Bush and Scalia would call me an idiot.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #171224

—-kctim— The nine billion dollars was not the
money wasted by Haliburton, that was just one more
fiasco. The nine billion the GAO said was sent to
Iraq for rebuilding, was given, in cash to the
first group of the Bush Administration first installed to lead Iraq. The money disappeared
with out a trace That’s according GAO.
I guess I haven’t done a good job trying to
convince you that this is not so much a political
solution, as it being the right or wrongs, an will a basic premise that Honesty will prevail.

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #171244

Everyone with half a sense for what is right knows that George and Dick are nothing but low down dirty crooks. Iraq is nothing but an opportunity taken advantage of to steal by dickey and co. George, is an opportunitist who has made his life by stealing. How about going back to the savings and loan scandal and his involvement in that. Good thing daddy was president at the time to help him out! Lots of money was magically lost then wasn’t it?

Posted by: Juan at July 27, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #171252

——Juan, Not that there is a big difference, his
other brother was the person involved in the
S& L scandal.

Posted by: DAVID at July 27, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #171264

We all talk about what is wrong with all that is happening but no one seems to see the writing on the wall. It should be apparent to all that this Administration has no intention of stepping down in 2008 and we should all be more concerned about what they will do (World War..or worse) to maintain their offices. All of their actions, from the line item vetoes to putting all the right right-wing yes-men in place has been designed, methodicaly, to be used when they make their move to completely take over the country. Whether it is a war, or something worse that they have in mind, one thing has become more than apparent and that is that this group of mean-spirited individuals want to not only destroy the democrats, they want to rewrite reality in America. They are actually backing anti-abortion groups that are telling children that abortions cause breast cancer. There is not a shred of truth in it. These are the guys that tried to say that tears can spread Aids. These people are mad…and, unfortunately in control of our country. If congress does not act immediately to reign in these Republican Fundamentalists, it may be too late. It may be too late already. I truly believe they will stop at nothing to maintain, and increase, their control.
robin

Posted by: robin szczepaniak at July 27, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #171308

Josh:

In the face of a spiraling German economy, Schroeder (sp) bolstered his support base by running on the issue of anti-Americanism. He made a point of opposing American interests, in general and regarding Iraq in specific, for two reasons. First, as the French and German economy tanked, Schroeder and Chiroc used Bush as a red herring for their nation’s economic woes. Second, Both France and Germany were deeply involved in illegal trading with Saddam Hussein. Schroeder and Chiroc knew that their activities would become public after the overthrow of Saddam. Indeed, they were right and the whole UN Oil for Food house of cards tumbled due to revelation of the wide scale corruption.

Personally, I feel that the multi-year media manipulation by Schroeder to enhance his anti-American support base makes polls of this sort unreliable. However, I do agree that many Germans hold negative opinions about America. That’s a shame. Many Germans thought that Schroeder was not in bed with Saddam; they were wrong about that too.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 28, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #171321

“That’s a shame. Many Germans thought that Schroeder was not in bed with Saddam; they were wrong about that too.”

Haven’t seen photos of those together (but haven’t really looked either.) I can’t say the same for Rummy & Cheney…

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 6:50 AM
Comment #171340

Tony
“Again, these are assumptions you have not proven.”

No knock signed by the president in the 90’s?
Unconstitutional gun legislation passed in the 90’s?
Wiretapping this decade?
Not assumptions at all but facts.

“I don’t buy them for a second”

I didn’t expect you too, you view things only from the left.

“And, you’re actually trying to compare Kosovo with Iraq??? Seriously???”

Many people thought Kosovo was an illegal war and that our troops should not be sent to fight somebody who did not threaten our country. Just as many people feel about Iraq today.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #171347

“It may be too late already. I truly believe they will stop at nothing to maintain, and increase, their control”

Yeah, my militia buddies all thought this about clinton and his criminal administration to.
Now, its 6 years later, clinton did not stay in power and set up a total socialist state and we are all still free to type what we wish on here.
Who would have believed.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #171348

kctim -

Not sure how long we should push this. My post is pointing out your assumptions of what liberals/democrats are thinking and have thought in the past. You are wrong, but obviously “you seem to see things only from the right. I know this is probably not true, no more than your assumption of my bias, but… just pointing another false assupmtion from you.)

Kosovo was a small scale military action based on a humanitarian crisis - and the President has the right to use the military in situations like this. Many people felt it was illegal because of the protocol… personally I have fewer issues with using military force to stop genocide, but I still was on the fence about Kosovo.

Comparing Kosovo and iraq only holds true if you solely compare the thoughts of the 2 main parties… but any further comparison is seriously flawed. (I think we lost 137 soldiers in that conflict - 1/3 of those were from accidents.)

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #171375

Thom,

My apology for my late reply.

Is it “sarcasm” that is weak or name calling someone with a “weak mind”? I kinda think the latter. But who knows?

Anyway, my point stands. Liberals all over this Blog are consumed with law suits and subpoenas. It’s their main focus in life. It seems the current international strife is tertiary to them … as in “why get upset at Iran, North Korea, or Hezbollah when we still have Republicans around?!” That to me is a gargantuan error in prioritization. They need larger, more global, & eclectic issues for their political zeal.

Until that happens, I’ll continue to reveal my “weak” mind. (Can I get welfare for such a thing by the way?)

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 28, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #171378

Tony
The point is that many people felt it was illegal and unjustified, just as many feel Iraq is.
The very same people who complained about kosovo are now silent about iraq and vice versa.
The amount of soldiers lost cannot be justified if an action is illegal. 1 or 100 or 1000 etc… is still dead US soldiers who died while fighting an enemy that did not threaten the US.
The comparisons are obvious.

“My post is pointing out your assumptions of what liberals/democrats are thinking and have thought in the past”

It is not the lefts “thinking” that I question. I have no way of knowing what another person thinks.
It is the lefts ACTIONS of the past and now the present that I question.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #171380

“It is the lefts ACTIONS of the past and now the present that I question.”

OK, I have have no problem at all with questioning what someone thinks or feels… but you state what others are thinking, as though it were fact. What you state about the “left” in not correct, it is not what we think or feel, now or in the past. That is the sole purpose of continually bringing this up.

Very few liberals I know actually voted for Clinton in 96. I actually tried to vote for Dole, but the my pen didn’t work. - bad joke.)

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #171423

“OK, I have have no problem at all with questioning what someone thinks or feels… but you state what others are thinking, as though it were fact”

No Tony.
Not what they think.
It is their actions or lack of, that I am talking about.

“What you state about the “left” in not correct, it is not what we think or feel, now or in the past. That is the sole purpose of continually bringing this up.”

What I said about the lefts “actions” is totally correct.
They openly and loudly defended or excused every questionable act committed by THEIR leader and now they criticize alot of the same things being done by Bush.
The left ignore the rights concerns then and now, the right is ignoring the lefts concerns.
That is why nothing will change for the better.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #171436

Kctim-

“The other side does it too!” - This is not a good argument to justify any actions, despite whose right or wrong. You complain about both parties pointing fingers and being defensive, but yet read your own posts. You perpetuate this problem by repeatedly pointing to the blunders of the “left” as your sole response to citisism of the “right.”

We need more justification than that. And I’m still waiting to hear from you re: signing statements (I believe your argument was: other people did it, so Bush can do it too…forget about context or purpose). My response is posted above.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 28, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #171444

“They openly and loudly defended or excused every questionable act committed by THEIR leader and now they criticize alot of the same things being done by Bush.”

Wow - thought we had gone over this. You are wrong about this because you simply assume it to be true. Prove it. Show me where liberals loudly defended Clinton lying to us.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #171449

Kevin
““The other side does it too!” - This is not a good argument to justify any actions, despite whose right or wrong.”

No kidding the other side does it too.
And I am not justifying the rights silence with this. They are quiet now because their party is in power.
But don’t worry, when the left wins back power and all their sheep go back to sleep and the right starts complaining again, I’ll be asking them why do they NOW care.

You complain about both parties pointing fingers and being defensive, but yet read your own posts. You perpetuate this problem by repeatedly pointing to the blunders of the “left” as your sole response to citisism of the “right.””

Uh, no. The tons of blunders by the left prove their hypocrisy and warrant the criticizm they deserve.
As I said before, the right is asleep.

“We need more justification than that. And I’m still waiting to hear from you re: signing statements (I believe your argument was: other people did it, so Bush can do it too…forget about context or purpose). My response is posted above”

Still waiting?
If signing statements are wrong, it does not matter if you issue one or a million. The person doing it is still wrong!
Context or purpose? Just an easy way of defending the ones you agree with and complaining about the ones you don’t agree with. Everybody can read into a signing statement, make it say what they want it to and use it to prove their opinion that the President is a saint or an evil rightwing Christian.
Political cherrypicking that will keep us a divided country until we soon destruct.

Tony
“Wow - thought we had gone over this.”

We did.

“You are wrong about this because you simply assume it to be true. Prove it. Show me where liberals loudly defended Clinton lying to us”

Um, we were talking about how the left thought doing one thing was ok under clinton but now think its wrong under Bush.
Illegal war, rights violations and the such.

As far as lying, take your pick. Here’s a few to get you started on.
Hush Money for Friendly Witnesses?
Destruction or Hiding of Documents?
Violating the Privacy Rights of Adversaries?
Failing to Comply with Subpoenas?
Keeping Meetings Secret by Filing False Statements?

Weren’t all the liberals screaming about some type of “vast right wing conspiracy” everytime anything negative came out about clinton?
Why yes they were.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #171453

“Um, we were talking about how the left thought doing one thing was ok under clinton but now think its wrong under Bush.”

Notice the word THOUGHT. You have absolutely NO idea what others are thinking now or back then, other than things that have been written down or have said directly to you. I am saying that you are wrong about the left’s reaction to what Clinton did. I am on the left so I know what I think and feel. You are on the right… so why would you assume to know anyone’s thoughts other than your own.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #171466

Just the wording Tony. I have clearly stated it is the lefts actions I am talking about.

We were talking about how the left are demanding Bush be held accountable for some of the same stuff they excused and defended clinton on.
Better wording?

“I am saying that you are wrong about the left’s reaction to what Clinton did”

Really?
The left believes he should have been impeached for lying?
The left believes he was wrong to send our soldiers to illegal and unjust wars that did not threaten our nation?
The left believes he was wrong to give police the no-knock powers that he did?
The left believes he was guilty of selling technology to china?
The left believes he was guilty of corruption?
ETC ETC ETC

Judging by the excuses or silence they had over these and many other of the rights concerns, I had the impression they did not.
And I AM talking about their actions, not their thoughts.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #171474

Kctim-

You didn’t read the first post did you? I went to all that trouble too. All well, par for the course.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 28, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #171495

I read every one of your posts.
Its not the signing statements you oppose, its what Bush has written. Ok, got it.
Anybody who may have disagreed with clintons signing statements is crazy. clinton could never do anything wrong. It is only the lefts opinions that count and should be listened to.

IF Bush has broken a law, then somebody will prosecute. Lord only knows how many lawyers are digging for anything they can find.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #171499

“The left believes he should have been impeached for lying?
The left believes he was wrong to send our soldiers to illegal and unjust wars that did not threaten our nation?
The left believes he was wrong to give police the no-knock powers that he did?
The left believes he was guilty of selling technology to china?
The left believes he was guilty of corruption?”

Wow - you say you are only talking about actions, but then launch into to discussing beliefs… again, you’re making assumptions. Keep to what you know. If you want to discuss Clinton’s actions, that’s fine… but you seem to want to make complaints about Bush invalid based on your assumptions on how people felt 10 years ago. And THAT is what you do not know.

I can only speak for the liberals I know - and what you are saying is wrong. We did not believe these things… but you also propose many of the items above in an assumed guilty light… that these things were bad or illegal. And that’s another discussion we can have… but the point is that you are saying that Liberals are OK with past wrong doings so they have no right to challenge wrong doings today. I’m saying, that as a Liberal, your assumption of how we felt about Clinton’s wrong doings is wrong and that your classification of many of Clinton’s past actions as “wrong” is wrong.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #171758

“but you seem to want to make complaints about Bush invalid based on your assumptions on how people felt 10 years ago. And THAT is what you do not know.”

NOT how they felt but what they did or did not do.
AGAIN, I don’t know nor care how liberals felt about all of clintons crimes. But I do know that they either ignored, excused or defended him at all costs.

“We did not believe these things…but you also propose many of the items above in an assumed guilty light… that these things were bad or illegal.”

Of course you didn’t believe them. I proposed them in a guilty light because I think they are true.
But why didn’t you believe them? Did the investigations prove your sides case enough for you? IF that is the case, then shouldn’t you afford that same luxury to Bush?

“but the point is that you are saying that Liberals are OK with past wrong doings so they have no right to challenge wrong doings today.”

What I said was the left ignored, excuse and defended clinton on every concern the right had and them claiming the same things are now wrong because Bush is doing them, just shows how big of hypocrites they are.

“I’m saying, that as a Liberal, your assumption of how we felt about Clinton’s wrong doings is wrong”

AGAIN Tony, I DO NOT KNOW, NOR DO I CARE, HOW THE LEFT “FELT” about clintons crimes. What I do know is that they did nothing but ignore, excuse or defend those actions. Most of the time before any investigation was done.

“and that your classification of many of Clinton’s past actions as “wrong” is wrong”

Yes, I know the left has justified everything clinton did and said clinton did no wrong. Kind of like the right is doing now huh.

Posted by: kctim at July 29, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #171775

Thank you Robin for cutting to the point. I’ve been saying this for a long time now.

THEY WILL NOT STOP AT ANYTHING, TO KEEP CONTROL.

Their history, has proven THAT.

Posted by: PlayNice at July 29, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #171820

“But I do know that they either ignored, excused or defended him at all costs.”

WRONG!

“What I said was the left ignored, excuse and defended clinton on every concern”

WRONG

“What I do know is that they did nothing but ignore, excuse or defend those actions. Most of the time before any investigation was done.”

WRONG

“I know the left has justified everything clinton did and said clinton did no wrong”

WRONG

You might these things to be true, and it might help justify your beleif system, but you are wrong, and you will always be wrong until you stop making assumptions and start looking around at the way things really are.

Now, I will agree about many of the items above, if we are talking about the elected DEMs of that time. It was a true embarassment for me as a DEM, and DEMs lost their power - they deserved to loose it.

I thought Clinton was a masterful politican… but he was a BUBBA for the stipid things he did which the REPs busted him for. He lost momentum for things he wanted because he could not control his urges, and that was truly insulting. I also was quite critical of Clinton - if you look at his policies, he was no where near liberal enough for me.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #171867

I suppose that since Clinton had a slight zipper malfunction (that only his wife should be concerned about), that this excuses an invasion of a foreign country without provacation; which was started by a lie; and is continuing —- only to increase corporate profits; and this slight Democratic indiscression (Clinton) also balances out the abandonment of flood victims in New Orleans, spying on American’s without search warrents or just cause, and outing a CIA agent because of revenge.

Gee, Bill Clinton,,,,WHAT A SCOUNDRAL! If Clinton deserved to be impeached? What does George deserve???? Huh?

Posted by: PlayNice at July 29, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #172053

“President George W. Bush has expressed his disdain for laws passed by Congress by first signing them and then issuing signing statements that negate what he had just signed. His actions have become so outrageous that a special task force of the American Bar Association has issued a report condemning this practice and asking Congress to pass legislation that will enable Congress to sue the president in order to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to act as referee.”

Paul,

The President should be held accountable for what he says and does as should all of the elected and appointed representatives.

There is an organization that I found on the World Wide Web that seeks exactly this. Their website is http://www.sowtp.org/index.htm

Mike

Posted by: miowens@neo.rr.com at July 30, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #172151

Kctim-

What I’m trying to make you see is this:

It is not that he is using signing statement that upsets people. It is his overall strategy which is despicable. Rather than use the signing statements as guidence for judges where he feels there may be gray area in the law, he has instead used them to push forth an agenda centered around the unified executive theory. His appointments of federal judges who will also push this agenda is also a concern. The goal is to consolodate the power of the exectutive, effectively usurping the framer’s intentions of requiring TWO branches of government in order to create or enforce policy. I was hoping you’d at least look into it and recognize that it IS an agenda…and it is NOT just him doing what others have done. Constitutional scholars are up in arms over this.

The “war on terror” has no stated end, so the executive power he’s using may very well be used by a subsequent administration which you abhor to push policies you find as offensive as I find Bush’s. This is a much bigger issue than current partisanship. This is constitutional law precedent being created, and now backed by a 5 conservative judge block. I know some people don’t mind it when party politics rules every vote in congress, and now the court. But I do. There have been more straight party line votes in congress during Bush’s term than at any other time in history. Now it seems the Sup Court is similarly plagued by the constant 5-4 decisions with the same judges at odds.

Bush has done unprecedented things at EVERY juncture. Usually he does them unecessarily as there was already a process set up which achieved the same end result without blatently violating the constitution. Ask me for an example and I’ll give you 10. But this does not stop him. Why? I’m telling you…he’s following a theory that he alone rules over anything non-domestic in nature. It has a lot of implications beyond the war on terror. If you can honestly tell me you agree with this theory, then I’ll leave it be. But I doubt you will if you think about the long term consequences.

Posted by: kevin23 at July 30, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #172168

“It was a true embarassment for me as a DEM, and DEMs lost their power - they deserved to loose it”

Yes they did and the Reps are keeping the cycle going Tony. Soon, it will be swing back around for the Dems and then we will here the right start blaming the Dems for everything under the sun.

Playnice
“I suppose that since Clinton had a slight zipper malfunction (that only his wife should be concerned about)”

Never cared about this much, but unfortuantly, the Dems try to make this out to be the ONLY reason behind clintons fall.

“that this excuses an invasion of a foreign country without provacation;”

or at the least excused a UN invasion complete with bombing civilians.

“which was started by a lie;”

Hey, prove it was a lie and get the legal system rolling. Every Dem in the country is eagerly awaiting your proof.

“and is continuing —- only to increase corporate profits; and this slight Democratic indiscression (Clinton)”

Again, it is the left who insists on ignoring everything else he did and tries to make the bj the main focus.

“also balances out the abandonment of flood victims in New Orleans,”

I personally believe it was the local govts and the people themselves to blame.
But hey, if the govt along with fema can forget about the midwesteners during the floods of 95, why are you surprised about NO?

“spying on American’s without search warrents or just cause, and outing a CIA agent because of revenge.”

I don’t know. Ordering police to use gestapo tactics and break down doors or taking away 2nd Amendment rights seem pretty bad too.
Now that I think of it though, ordering audits of the opposition, murdering American citizens, selling secrets to the chinese etc…seems pretty bad also.

“Gee, Bill Clinton,,,,WHAT A SCOUNDRAL! If Clinton deserved to be impeached? What does George deserve???? Huh?”

Yeah, clinton was a dishonest, lying, corrupt and disrespectful to our Constitution and when you guys get the proof you need against Bush, share it and let the law do its job.
But seeing how clinton got away with it, I’m sure Bush will too.

Posted by: kctim at July 30, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #172172

Kevin
I have read about it and I do not agree with it. That is not where we differ.
I do not believe anything will change except with WHO is issuing these signing statements.
By its very nature, the war on terror can never end. The next president will be a Dem and he too will issue signing statements that are suspect just like Bush has done.
IF the left is really about justice and not power, they will have their chance to prove it.
But, I would be willing to bet my house that when that time comes, it will then be the right crying about things and the left will be ignoring, defending and excusing those very actions, again.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #172184

kctim

I guess you can put a spin on anything. Fortunately you are only in a percentage of 1/3rd of the US, that may agree with you.

And, you know perfectly well, that when the Republicians own the majority in congress, the senate, the supreme court and the white house; where is the mandate for impeachment? This law suit is about all that anyone can do, for now.

Posted by: PlayNice at July 31, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #172300

Kctim-

I guess I am just the type who likes to take repercussions into account BEFORE I act. You may be able to fall back on the assertion that since the next president can use the same strategy (not likely by the way for a multitude of reasons), then it is ok. I think that to be an incredibly irresponsible way of justifying bad acts with more bad acts. You may be ready, willing and able to jump off the deep end, but I’d like to think that integrity can exist on at least some level in politics. And I would also hope that republicans will actually put real pressure on Bush and congress to represent the true will of their constituents. So far, at every turn they have bypassed procedure and targetted enforcements to further an unpopular domestic agenda, all the while keeping real issues on the back burner. Then there is Iraq…

So it is not just about partisan politics like you and other republicans claim, but more about respect for the will of people. This administration has none, and their actions explicitly prove this. So tell me again why you are not offended by this without resorting to illogical justifications like: “someone else will do it, therefore it is ok.” Well, no one has employed this strategy in over 200 years, so what makes you so sure that all politicians have equal disdain for the constitution and for governmental procedure?

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 31, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #172760

So tell me again why you are not offended by this without resorting to illogical justifications like: “someone else will do it, therefore it is ok.”

I never said I was NOT pissed about this.

Well, no one has employed this strategy in over 200 years, so what makes you so sure that all politicians have equal disdain for the constitution and for governmental procedure?

I lived throughout the entire clinton.

Posted by: kctim at August 2, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #173037

OK…so your argument is that Clinton openly violated the constitution?

When did this occur? What does that prove? What is the connection to what Bush is doing now? What ARE you trying to say anyway?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 3, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #173252

What am I trying to say?
Until the people hold both parties to the same standard, NOTHING will change.
50 million people sleep when its their party in power and 50 million complain because its not their party in power.
IF these people would apply the same standards to both parties, that would 100 million people complaining and then something may get done.
Unless that happens, we will continue to be divided until we fall.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #173623

When the Republicians own the white house, the senate, the congress, and have the majority in the supreme court? What exactly, do you expect Democrates to do???

Posted by: PlayNice at August 6, 2006 12:40 PM
Post a comment