Neocons claim Bush can ignore laws due to Separation of Powers

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement

================================================
Neocon reply:

Each branch has had specific powers granted to it. Congress passes laws and writes the checks (among many other things) the others are the same ergo the examples cited.

Congress is not permitted to make laws that require the executive branch to exersize the powers granted to it in the Constitution in a certain way. Neither is the Executive permitted to tell Congress what laws to pass. Yes I realize that the Executive may suggest, but only suggest, not require. There are similar exclusions between all three branches.

Seperation of powers prevents any one branch from gaining supremacy over another.

nuff said

I hope in my lifetime "neocon" will be treated the same as "communist" and "facist" are today...

No more necessary; a president who refuses to follow the law should be impeached. And Bush has done so much more to justify it, starting with lies for war.

and will not follow. Just a thought.

The executive branch job is not to EXECUTE what is legislated by the LEGISLATIVE branch. Makes perfect sense.

.

If he has powers to do as he wishes.

... if the President does it, that means it's not illegal.

Only if there's a republican President, of course,

IOKIYAR

Then America will be a secure bastion of Liberty and Freedom

and let the people ignore the immoral laws of the government.

There it is. CONGRESS makes the laws. The guy in the Oval Office does NOT get to write the laws.

Or, put it in terms the neocons can appreciate: If bush can add/subtract things to the laws Congress passes, then the next president can too... How fun will that be for Hillary?
:evilgrin:

The neocons are truly fascist. Laws mean nothing to them. They should all be thrown in prison.

Tammy