3 Democrats slam president over defying statutes

[salin]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3_democrats_slam_president_over_defying/

The Globe's coverage on the signing statement issue continues to be top notch! Read on:

3 Democrats slam president over defying statutes

Say he cannot claim powers above the law
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 2, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Three leading Democratic senators blasted President Bush yesterday for having claimed he has the authority to defy more than 750 statutes enacted since he took office, saying that the president's legal theories are wrong and that he must obey the law.

''We're a government of laws, not men," Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in a statement. ''It is not for George W. Bush to disregard the Constitution and decide that he is above the law."

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of attempting to concentrate ever more government power in their own hands.

... more...

[sweettater]

1. So.............

are they going to do anything about it?

[Syrinx]

2. indeed n/t

[salin]

3. Since I read the article, I have done 'news.google' on it

as of yesterday afternoon - only the original article, and variations (same author) picked up by other media sources. Little attention. As if the media yawned, and because they knew of two examples of the use of the signing statement approached it as they did the Downing Street Memos (initially) as in "we already knew that - don't need to report on it."

Thus it appears that these Senators are trying to grand stand a little to force some coverage on the scope and frequency of the presidential practice. Truth is, that unless some members of the GOP get up in arms, without a majority there is little the dems can do. With a silent media - there is no way to inform the public which could sound a large outcry and force GOP members to join Dems to hold real hearings, or other maneuvers. In that scenario - this 'speaking out' is a good first step in terms of forcing the media to comment - and give bigger play to the issue of 750 signing statements in just over five years. A rate of one signing statement, dictating around the Constitution, every three days bush has been in office.

[rodeodance]

5. I have not heard the news media discuss it at all.

[UpInArms]

12. As Steven Colbert illustrated to mightily, the media cannot look

at anything that would highlight their Dorian Gray reflections.

[Rose Siding]

13. It's their duty to do something about it

If speaking is all they can do, they have to do that. I don't think it's grand standing.

[sutz12]

17. Probably not until we oust the Repug 'majority'

Hard to get any action when you don't control any of the chairmanships.

Maybe publicity can get the Repugs to act, but I doubt it.

[rodeodance]

4. Leahy put the blame on Repug Congress -those who allow this to happen

because of no Congressional oversite. He is right.



....But legal scholars say Bush's assertions have gone far beyond that of any previous president in US history. Bush has applied his signing statements to more than 750 new statutes. His numbers are by far a record for any US president, scholars say.

Many scholars also contend that Bush is usurping some of the lawmaking powers of the Congress and Constitution-interpreting powers of the courts.

But, Leahy said, because Bush's fellow Republicans control Congress, Democrats have no power to call hearings on Bush's attempt to ''pick and choose which laws he deems appropriate to follow."

''Just as disturbing as the president's use of press releases to announce which laws he will follow is the abject failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to act as a check against this executive power grab," Leahy said. ''Until Republican leaders let Congress fulfill its oversight role, this White House will have no incentive to stop this abuse of power."

[acmavm]

6. Hmmmmmmm. What would you call someone how defies the law and

claims that they can ignore over 750 of them at will?

Would that be a criminal?

[rodeodance]

7. But the Sun. story is the most emailed story (if this is any

consolation). Tells me that people ARE interested.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3_democrats_slam_president_over_defying/

BOSTON.COM'S MOST E-MAILED

* Bush challenges hundreds of laws

[rodeodance]

8. I will email to Keith Olbermann--ask him to cover it.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3_democrats_slam_president_over_defying/

[rodeodance]

9. [e-mail]

[bigscott]

11. KO did cover it last night

had the author of the article on - it was great - KO was his wonderful sacrastic self!

[PuppyBismark]

20. KO did the story yesterday

I TIVO KO every day and just watched yesterday's show. He had the writer from the Boston Globe on and did a good job on the subject. What needs to happen, is B* needs to actually try to use one of his signing statements in the course of governing in a way that it is easily shown. Some of the bills B* amended relate to whistle blowing and civil rights. Then in 4 years it will be to the Supreme Court.

[Skittles]

10. gee, whatever happened to THE RULE OF LAW

I guess it only applied to CLINTON

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. Only 3.... How sad.

Where the (insert very long stream of invective here) are all the other Congresscritters?

[oxbow]

15. It's going to fall on the people to hold them accountable for this

That's what the journalist who broke this story said on Countdown. Like this article said, the GOPCongress will never hold this president to task, or even investigate possible wrongdoing.

[Zynx]

16. There is a little measure in the Constitution on how to deal with this:

IMPEACHMENT!

[Heywood J]

18. Technically, I wonder,

does that mean that if we don't believe the laws governing removing him from office are constitutional, we can remove him ourselves? Or perhaps ignore laws like HAVA?

[salin]

19. Philosophically - it does open interesting avenues...

if the Constitution does not bound the President, does it bind us? Is the contract nullified if one branch acts, consistently over a long period of time, as if the Constitution isn't binding?

[Oak2004]

21. The contract is nullified

in that we are in a genuine bona-fide constitutional crisis, and we are not being governed in accordance with the document. I think that we will not completely resolve this crisis without multiple amendments to our constitution, or a new one altogether, providing for additional checks and balances.

I nominate for consideration restrictions on corporate power, including the abolition of the notions that corporations are legal persons and that money is speech; provisions against media consolidation; criminalizing the violation of civil liberties, abolishing pardons for crimes committed by government officials in the course of executing the duties of their office, and providing that a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted for gross violations of the provisions of the constitution; an updated and more comprehensive Bill of Rights which, among other things, guarantees the right to vote and which strictly prohibits data mining and warrantless spying on citizens; instant runoff voting; and much greater control on the ability of politicians to use/abuse the US military.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. Seconded.

[anotherdrew]

25. agre. for bush to even float this is beyond belief

if this isn't stopped cold and quick, it's the end of even the joke of running a republic.

corps should get zero representation, less than zero. Their interests have no place in public policy - at all. It's their job to find a way within existing public policy to make a profit, not to adjust the rules to their likeing. We've been governed by ego maniac madmen for too long.

[CPMaz]

23. Since his authority as President is defined in the Constitution

and he swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend said Constitution, could his words that the Constitution does not apply to him, and his actions in furtherance of that position, be construed as a resignation from office?


Yeah, I know it's a stretch, and certainly *he'll* never agree, but it's an interesting question anyway.

[salin]

27. It may be a stretch

but it is an interesting one.

[anotherdrew]

24. wgy doesn't this read three HUNDRED!?!?!?!?!?! are these people nuts?

every single person in the country would be opposed to this. There is no basis for this, it completely nullifies congresses power... it's insane... for god's sake it's grounds for impeachment to even sugest such a thing!

[radfringe]

26. snarky idea for protest

get balloons shaped like blimps with USS Bush on them