Government watchdog says Bush ignored law after 30% of signing statements

Government watchdog says Bush ignored law after 30% of signing statements
Michael Roston
Published: Monday June 18, 2007


The Government Accountability Office issued a report showing that US government agencies ignored Congressional legislation on 30% of the occasions when President George W. Bush issued a 'presidential signing statement' after signing bills into law. The report was released today by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Conyers slammed Bush's use of signing statements, which he noted were far more frequent than any previous administration.

"The Administration is thumbing its nose at the law," he said. "This study calls for an extensive review of these practices, something the Administration has so far refused to do."

Senator Byrd agreed.

"The White House cannot pick and choose which laws it follows and which it ignores. When a president signs a bill into law, the president signs the entire bill. The Administration cannot be in the business of cherry picking the laws it likes and the laws it doesn't," the President Pro Tempore of the Senate said. "This GAO opinion underscores the fact that the Bush White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people's branch of government to the sidelines....We must continue to demand accountability and openness from this White House to counter this power grab."

more at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Government_watchdog_says_Bush_ignored_law_0618.html

we are dealing with a criminal. :banghead:

If it isn't one broken law, it is another....

That might put a stop to his daily high crimes and misdemeanors.

I'm sure that number will grow with time - and more revelations.

he's being paid for??????:sarcasm:

Someone should be taking the government agencies to court, to get them to follow the law as specified by Congress. There should be as many test cases as possible to get the courts to rule on this new-fangled, Judge Dredd, "I am The Law" approach that Bush takes.

And the Republican party ought to be paying all the legal costs - because it's their idea that a Republican president can ignore the law.

Until then it's all moaning and pissing.

As Richard Pryor said (cribbed from an earlier comedian): You go to the court lookin' for justice. And that's just what you find: Just us.

This is a destructive precedent to let stand. It must be challenged up to the highest court in the land!

Tell him how concerned you are!

-Hoot

unelected despot. It just doesn't have a nice ring to it though!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/010906a.html

"Alito theory" as written in 1986

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf


"At a Federalist Society symposium in 2001, Judge Alito recalled that when he was in the Office of Legal Counsel in Ronald Reagan’s White House, “we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President.”

In 1986, Alito advanced this theory by proposing “interpretive signing statements” from presidents to counter the court’s traditional reliance on congressional intent in assessing the meaning of federal law. Under Bush, these “signing statements” have amounted to rejection of legal restrictions especially as they bear on presidential powers."


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/011306.html

Alito Hearings: Democrats' 'Katrina'

"the Democrats also might have trimmed down their flabby speechifying and instead posed pointed question after pointed question to Alito, eventually making his refusal to answer questions the central issue of the hearings...


Since you, Judge Alito, have long promoted the theory of the “unitary executive,” where are the boundaries of the President’s powers? For the duration of the War on Terror, are there any meaningful limits on the President’s right to do whatever he deems necessary? Judge Alito, how do you differentiate between a system run by a “unitary executive” and a dictatorship?

Clearly, Alito would not have answered these questions. He would fallen back on his ritual response of declining to comment about issues that might eventually come before the Supreme Court.

But many Americans would have been shocked by Alito’s refusal to stand decisively on the side of a traditional democratic Republic and against an autocratic regime. It also might have dawned on millions of Americans what’s at stake in this debate."


Senate votes

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00001

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11100207/

"Late Monday afternoon, President Bush released a statement expressing pleasure “that a strong, bipartisan majority in the Senate decisively rejected attempts to obstruct and filibuster an up-or-down vote on Judge Sam Alito's nomination.”

Bush's statement was a reference to the bloc of Democrats, led by Massachusetts Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, that unsuccessfully tried over the weekend and Monday to persuade other senators to use a vote-delaying filibuster to stop Alito, a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Appeals Court and a former lawyer for the Reagan administration.

“It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country,” said Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee."