| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:44 am: | 
|
Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 4, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world's largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political parties.
They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.
Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and ``whistle-blower" protections for federal employees.
The challenges also have included safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.
Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined
Whole story:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_ review_bushs_legal_challenges/ |
Concerned07040
Citizen
Username: Concerned07040
Post Number: 123
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
It's about time someone challenged the imperial president!
Concerned07040 |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7332
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
boring & pointless. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5480
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Not really pointless.
It's actually a new theory - the President can "interpret" laws as he signs them, and decides whether or not to obey them.
See, those old-fashioned folks, who believe in things like "separation of powers" and "the rule of law", are concerned about this.
You would be, also, if Clinton did it.
Yes, I used the "if Clinton did it" line. It applies here, if it ever did. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7334
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Right,
Litigation lawyers concerned the Supreme Ct. may be taking money out of their pockets..
libs.  |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5484
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Quote:Litigation lawyers concerned the Supreme Ct. may be taking money out of their pockets
Um, maybe you missed what was being discussed.
This isn't about a Supreme Court decision.
This about a situation where the President is presented with a bill passed by Congress, which says: "Torture is bad." The President takes out a pen, puts a little arrow between the words "is" and "bad", and writes above the words, "not so".
The President takes the position that he has now enacted a law which says, "Torture is not so bad."
The Constitution (and all real Americans, may I add) says otherwise.
You're welcome.
You were going to thank me for that little civics lesson, no? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Thanks nohero, I was going to respond to the drivvle, but what I was thinking would have been for more graceless, than what you posted. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7336
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
It's a little more than that Nohero. Why must you always lie? Or maybe you really don't know..
"Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and ``whistle-blower" protections for federal employees."
I'll let you figure out the rest on your own.
libs.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:32 pm: |
|
Straw, you forgot the other 748. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5485
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Quote:It's a little more than that Nohero. Why must you always lie? Or maybe you really don't know..
The President was not "challenging" laws, he is asserting that he can define what is meant, when Congress passes a law. Other people (okay, anyone who cares about the Constitution) disagree.
But, why do I bother?
Mr. Straw actually doesn't understand what is being discussed in this thread. Apparently, he's using hostility as a cover for that lack of understanding.
Kind of like a President (you all can guess who that is). |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
........ er ah, you mean King George? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11718
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 4:56 am: |
|
The scary part is that some of the "conservative" judges appointed recently believe that the President's signing statements have at least equal standing with the wording and intent of the actual law passed by Congress.
Bush, or any other President, has the right, actually the obligation, to veto laws he doesn't think are good for the country. The signing statements are just a way to avoid vetos with the added plus that the President gets to interpret the law, not the Courts.
Kind of scary, huh?
|
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7337
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 5:03 am: |
|
Actually what's scary is libs like Nohero think the ABA is actually getting ready to defend the nation from the evils of the Bush Administration..
I mean the lawyers are here to save America??
What's next from the great Nohero? Is he going to tell us the used cars salesmen are ready to tackle global warming?
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2990
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Yeah, who needs lawyers to involve themselves with interpretation of the Constitution when we have politicians willing to do it? |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7355
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:30 pm: |
|
exactly..well said.. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Strawberry, what are you accomplishing anymore?
I read the MOL threads over the weekend (didn't post) and Strawberry's become the equivalent of the monkey at the zoo that smears feces on everything. I know that's the Republican plan for victory in November, but jeez……. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
If you can't take it then don't walk through the zoo. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Thanks to the gay marraige ban- the DEM victory looms larger. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3398
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:28 pm: |
|
That's ironic, ae35unit, a long time ago I described Straw as the MOL'er "most likely to take a dump in the punch bowl".
More signing statements that all previous presidents COMBINED. Such a thing is only boring and pointless to those who care nothing about America and democracy. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page