Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Bushco Issues-NEW SIGNING STATEMENT-In Order To-VIOLATE LAW-He Just Signed!

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

kpete

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 10:44 PM
Original message

Bushco Issues-NEW SIGNING STATEMENT-In Order To-VIOLATE LAW-He Just Signed!

Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 10:48 PM by kpete

Statement by the President on S. 3001,
the "Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009"

Wednesday, October 15, 2008
It's his war till the end

George Bush signed into the law the national defence budget authorization for 2009 and then later issued his signing statement on the legislation i.e. where he explains which section of the law he won't be obeying. Among the sections he intends to violate --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081014-8.html
SEC. 1211. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.

No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.

SEC. 1508. (b) Combined Operations-

(1) COST SHARING- The United States Government shall initiate negotiations with the Government of Iraq on an agreement under which the Government of Iraq shall share with the United States Government the costs of combined operations of the Government of Iraq and the Multi-National Forces Iraq undertaken as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(2) REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, submit to Congress a report describing the status of negotiations under paragraph (1).

.....................

Note that there is a symmetry to the two sections, since the fact that the Iraqi government isn't paying for the war could be used as the political basis for claiming an entitlement to its oil.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081014-8.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Richard Steele

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 10:49 PM
Response to Original message

1. GRRRecommended

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message

2. Well...since '06, Dems could have stopped this . . .it is Congress' rsponsibility . . .

to see that the laws/legislation they pass are carried out in the spirit and with the

intent with which they were passed---!!!!

Where in the hell is the Dem Congress on all these things?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

anigbrowl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. Does the phrase 'veto proof majority' mean anything to you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cui bono

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. But did they even try to pass it? Problem is, neither "leader" understands

Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 11:30 PM by cui bono

political theater. They both fold or put their cards on the table without playing a good game. Repubs tell Reid they'll filibuster and he whimpers off with his tail between his legs instead of making them do it. Pelosi takes impeachment off the table and takes away the best leverage she could ever have, even if she has no intention of actually doing it.

Dems could have made signing statements an issue and the public would have totally gotten behind it. So what if Bush vetoes it, that's part of the point. Make him do it and let the public see who's doing what. But no, Pelosi and Reid are not leaders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

anigbrowl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. I'm not sure I agree

I think they've been playing defense for the last 2 years...we on the left enjoy political theater, but a lot of people don't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cui bono

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Yeah, but they need to be playing offense.

But they won't even stand up to the Repubs. They're so used to being pushed around I guess. If Reid made the Repubs filibuster the public would then see who's holding things up, and what legislation they're blocking. Without that they are under the impression that Dems don't get things done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #10

29. This thinking is like those who think that Bush is just plain stupid . . .

No -- Bush isn't stupid -- he knows quite well where he intends to go and what the

agenda is and what cards he's playing - he knows the game better than we do!

SAME with Pelosi and Reid -- they also aren't stupid . . . are they?

Of course not!

They certainly aren't some wimps who rose to power -- they rose to power doing favors

who people who are working against the interests of the majority.

You have to "get it" -- Pelosi didn't take impeachment off the table because she's

a wimp - she took it off the table because it would have worked against the interests

of those she really represents!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cui bono

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #29

38. Actually, she didn't take it off the table is because it would have incriminated her.

She knew about the torture and let it continue.
More evidence of how ineffectual she is, whatever the reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #38

43. Yes, she is "ineffectual" . . . ON PURPOSE . . .!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #7

27. Right . . .and as Nader recently pointed out, telling Bush he wouldn't be subject to...

impeachment pretty much gave him the news he could do anything he wanted --- !!!

Pelosi and Reid are leaders -- but not for the issues we're interested in --

they're protecting Bush and corporations and moving the DLC way...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadHound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #5

11. Does the phrase "withhold the budget" mean anything to you?

Congress controls the purse strings, they could have withheld the money until they got what they wanted, a timeline, the troops home, etc. etc. Instead they just kept shoveling more money and more lives into the hopper:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalFighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #11

22. How does Congress withhold the money when it goes directly into the Treasury?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

druidity33

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #22

39. with legislation? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalFighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #39

41. Who signs the bill to make it legal? Or vetoes the bill?

What good does it do for Congress to pass legislation if Bush vetoes it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

funflower

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #5

15. That's irrelevant. He SIGNED the bill. And told us he intends to disobey it.

Sounds like a criminal act to me. :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

anigbrowl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #15

36. And what would you have congress do about it?

They could pass another bill saying the opposite of his signing statement, and it could be vetoed. People who say 'why doesn't Congress kick Bush's ass' seem not to get that our constitutional system is set up to require a supermajority for congressional override.

You might be surprised to know that President Clinton also made extensive use of signing statements to challenge provisions of a law he didn't like (although he didn't do this nearly as often as Bush has). It remains unclear what the legal status of signing statements are, so unfortunately it's not simply a 'criminal act' as you suggest, but a complex constitutional law matter.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements for more detail on the subject.

As Obama is a constitutional law scholar, if he's elected with a solid congressional majority I rather hope we'll see some long-overdue clarification in this matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Stranger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5

40. How about impeachment? Threatening impeachment? Hinting about threatening?

Nope -- the Pelosi Traitor won't allow it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cui bono

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. If they don't change congressional leadership... I'll... I'll... um....

:cry:

We need Clinton as Senate Majority Leader. She would bust some Repub balls and get things done. Not sure who to get in the House. Perhaps Wexler?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JDPriestly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #6

17. Clinton would do an excellent job. She probably can't get elected

because she is not popular with the other senators. But she would keep them in line. She has the tough stuff needed for that job. Reid is popular because he is a wimp. We don't need wimps in leadership positions.

Also, Clinton is not extreme in her views. She works well with others even though she is tough. She would be a great leader in the Senate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #17

31. Clinton is DLC . . . we already have DLC leadership with Pelosi and Reid . . do you like it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kaleko

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message

3. Sorry, outrage overload prevents me from reacting appropriately. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

snot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:02 PM
Response to Original message

4. k&r'd

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hannah Bell

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-14-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message

8. congress just gives up its powers. why?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GreenPartyVoter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #8

30. God only knows, but I am sick of it!

Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 12:15 PM by GreenPartyVoter

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #30

32. We really don't have control over the House . .. too few members to represent

us all and provide a way for us to really have control of any member --

From the beginning, the Founders understood representation was too small.

And Senate is intended to calm down the House -- the people.

It's the elite body.

British have something like one rep for every 70,000 people . . . I think . . . ?

We have one rep for every 750,000 ... I think?

At least, last I worked it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

aquart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:14 AM
Response to Original message

12. That's our George. All ours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ReadTomPaine

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:17 AM
Response to Original message

13. His personal line item veto. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonteLukast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:20 AM
Response to Original message

14. An even scarier thought

How exactly is Congress supposed to deal with an executive that's actually, for all intents and purposes, above the law? Maybe the reason their leadership hasn't been up to snuff has nothing to do with majorities, but the fact that BushCo has, indeed, rendered Congress powerless to check the executive?

:scared: :scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

funflower

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #14

16. He'll do exactly as he pleases between now and Jan. 20 - especially after the election.

When he'll have absolutely nothing to lose (since Congress won't enforce the law against him).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Solly Mack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 03:43 AM
Response to Original message

18. the unitary executive rolls on

and over Congress...

SOP since 2001

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Irish Girl

(265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 04:00 AM
Response to Original message

19. wtf??? Enough is ENOUGH

I'm so blistering mad.. this scum of hell is rendering our Congress powerless.

:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Delphinus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 05:33 AM
Response to Original message

20. These signing statements

show, time after time, that he's the fucking dictator he always wanted to be. :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Senator

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 07:23 AM
Response to Original message

21. Without Impeachment, Pelosi Approves

The same is true for torture and war crimes. Tacit approval is still approval.

Only impeachment -- even a failed House vote -- is valid objection/rejection. Without it, in real time, this monarchical power is permanent.

It's never "too late" or "too divisive" to ACT to stop ongoing torture and worse. In fact, that failure is the "worse."

We must still challenge http://www.talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">our cowering candidate and the rest of the DC-Dem "leadership" to DO what they know is right.

Their continued failure forsakes Our National Soul.

---

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

defendandprotect

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #21

33. Absolutely true . . what they don't act against, they're condoning . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LynneSin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 08:31 AM
Response to Original message

23. Bush might as well go nuts with signing statements.....

Because come Jan 20th 2009, Obama will select an AG that will go thru all of those with a finetooth comb and turn any of them around not constitutional (which will probably be all of them)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonteLukast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #23

24. I would like to see all of them in the same place as Alberto Gonzales.

Ruined, unemployable and adrift.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LynneSin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #24

37. ..... and pardoned

:cry:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message

25. Almost done,

yes indeed. Almost done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Supersedeas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message

26. Control of Oil Resources in Iraq -- Ray Hunt and the rest of Bushies Buddies appreciate that

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

derby378

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:39 AM
Response to Original message

28. Why aren't Dems preventing this shit?

:mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 11:53 AM
Response to Original message

34. he's hiding behind the summary of the Constitution Cheney wrote for him

here's his treason:

Provisions of the Act, including sections 851, 902, 1211(2), and 1508(b), purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to conduct diplomatic negotiations, to supervise the executive branch, to appoint officers of the United States, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall continue to construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority and obligations of the President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

polmaven

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message

35. Well, he won't be obeying it

for only another 97 days. Then, we hope, we will have a president who will take his oath of office seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AzDar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message

42. K & R ...

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:26 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC