US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged

[YankeyMCC]

Source: Boston Globe

(snip)
WASHINGTON -- Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.
(snip)

(snip)
House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers , Democrat of Michigan, said yesterday that the GAO's findings demonstrated a need for a more "extensive review" of how the government has followed up on hundreds of other laws challenged by Bush.

"The administration is thumbing its nose at the law," said Conyers, one of the lawmakers who commissioned the GAO study.
(snip)

(snip)
For example, one law requires the Customs and Border Patrol to relocate its illegal immigrant checkpoints near Tucson every seven days to prevent smugglers from being able to predict where they are, but the agency failed to do so. The border patrol told the GAO that the law is flawed because it "diverts resources," and it characterized the requirement as "advisory."

In his signing statement of Oct. 18, 2005, Bush instructed the border patrol to view the "relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory" on the assertion that only the president has the constitutional authority to decide how to deploy law enforcement officers.
(snip)

(snip)
The GAO conducted its study by looking at all the provisions in 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2006 that Bush challenged in signing statements. It counted 160 such laws that the president had claimed a right to ignore.

Investigators then selected a representative sample of 19 bill provisions Bush had targeted and asked agencies to explain whether and how they had obeyed the provisions. It found that 10 such laws were enforced as written, six were not enforced as written, and three did not have to be enforced because the circumstance envisioned had not materialized.
(snip)


Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/19/us_agencies_disobey_6_laws_that_president_challenged/

[Drum]

1. Kick & rec!

This stinks...signing statements have to go.

[19jet54]

36. Signing statements are not the problem...

... Bush Is - I think he is the one that has to go!

[Canuckistanian]

2. Congress - what a "quaint" anachronism

Silly politicians - they think they're actually making law.

[UpInArms]

3. this mal-administration is out of control and needs to be

deconstructed and its leaders impeached.

[tbyg52]

39. This is manifest grounds for impeachment

He's ignoring the law of the land. No, he's deliberately breaking the law of the land. What does it take?

[LynnTheDem]

4. So when the next president has a (D) after her name...

she too gets to "set aside any laws" she feels like...and the rightwingnuts will APPLAUD AND SUPPORT her!

:rofl:

[aquart]

10. I haven't heard a word from ANY candidate about returning seized power.

So whoever wins, takes it all.

[Journeyman]

15. Power is more easily grabbed than relinquished. . .

As recipients of a political reality altered beyond anything the wildest thinkers could have imagined just a few short years ago, it will take a remarkable will for anyone to revoke it, let alone strive to revert it to what it was before. Certainly, I see a quick return to some aspects of "normality" after the next election, but the allure of unbridled power will remain and, despite readily accomplished cosmetic improvements, power's seduction will be a Siren song of indeterminate appeal. Yet another reason for us to choose very wisely in the coming elections.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

19. which is exactly why Bush is the worst President in history

and why this administration the most dangerous. Not because of what they have done, as bad that is, but what the next Pres can do. Lord help us if it's any of the Republicans.

[aquart]

29. Actually, right now the Democrat is the danger.

Because we'll sigh and relax then. And we can't. A Dem Congress is going to have to be vigilant and combative with a Dem president. Please God, we can do it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. I think that would be an excellent candidate question, and one that MUST be asked

"The current administration has assumed a great deal of power: signing statements that override the law, the power of a 'unary executive' and the like. If you are elected President, will you exercise these same power or will you repudiate them?"

This question should be asked however many times is needed to make the candidate clearly pick one or the other answer clearly and on the record, without vagueness, ambivalence, explanation or equivocation. Any candidate who then answers "excercise" should be thrown out of the race for president and arrested for conspiracy to commit treason. Any candidate who answers "repudiate," gets elected and then excercises such powers in any way, shape or form should be automatically impeached and arrested for conspiracy to commit treason in gross violation of the Oath of Office.

Or am I being too lenient? :hi:

[aquart]

34. No. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The last thing we need is a power-drunk Dem pres. Or another idiotically acquiescent Congress.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. The Gonzo interpretation of the Oath of Office: pfffft!! "It says nothing about

enforcing the rule of Law!"

President's Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[aquart]

30. The loophole is clearly "best of my ability."

George always gets to skate on that one.

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. LOL!

[Javaman]

6. the slow deconstruction of the american democracy. nt

[shanti]

8. slow??

:eyes:

[Javaman]

18. Okay, I was going for the dramatic. Fast and furious. nt

[shanti]

20. that's more like it!

:hi: they've done so much damage in 7 years it's unbelievable.

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Not only NOT slow, but with thunderous applause

And there are a great many Democrats who are enthusiastically clapping, particularly in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

[RaRa]

7. "The administration is thumbing its nose at the law," i.e

BREAKING the LAW! Sheesh!

[bemildred]

9. Hello? The US government has habitually been "selective" about enforcing it's own laws.

We have a government of men, not of laws, and it's been that way from the beginning.

"It is one of the genuine marks of servitude to have the law either concealed or precarious." -- Sir Edward Coke

[Highway61]

11. The numbers are staggering

The total number of signing statements before this president by ALL presidents is 322. Bush signed 435 in his first term alone!!!
The EXACT number to date is not known as this administration REFUSES to give that information out...we do know that 1149 laws have been "altered"

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=340571&rel_no=5

All I know is ...if Bill had signed a statement protecting him from, well, not exactly admitting to what he said did or didn't happen that fateful night (what a witch hunt that was)...We wouldn't be in this mess right now :(

K & R!

[Straight Shooter]

22. You're right, Clinton should have signed a signing statement declaring his personal life off limits.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[EnviroBat]

12. Ah yes, the Chimp keepin us all safer...

In his signing statement of Oct. 18, 2005, Bush instructed the border patrol to view the "relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory" on the assertion that only the president has the constitutional authority to decide how to deploy law enforcement officers.

I need to get my friends and family outta here before this asshole gets us all killed...

[me b zola]

25. That example stood out for me as well...

Yeah, all of those rePublicans who cheered when * said that he had the power to do anything that he wanted, I don't think that they will be happy about this one.

We tried to tell them that they'll only think *'s facsist behavior is cute until they realize that it affects what is important to them too.

[Kagemusha]

13. Signing statements mean nothing legally. Actual defiance of the law does

Now there's a basis for bringing the hammer down.

That border patrol thing is real rich. Congress provides the resources it asked to be diverted, duh

Edit: Having said that, for all I know, Bush may be right on the law (or Constitution, rather) in this instance.

[november3rd]

14. Throw them all out

I now view the Congress--Pelosi, Conyers, Nadler, Kucinich, all of them--as complicit in this disempowerment of the people of the United States.

Any Congressperson of energy and conscience could bring government to a screeching halt and demand these abuses be rectified if they wanted to.

But they don't because they don't want to call attention to their own complicity in the crimes, and they hope to turn the tables and profit from the illegal abuses after 2008, in much the same way BushCo does now.

It's really up to us, you know. We will never have justice if we wait for the powerful to administer it for us.

"In the course of human events," the time has come!

[JBear]

16. CNN once again fails miserably!

CNN is running a piece similar to this, but with a little twist that seems to GREATLY distort the facts.
The headline is "Signing Statements add presidential spin to new laws." The first byline summary reads "Statements allow president to interpret or restrict new laws."

How unbelieveable is this!!! The "News" is reporting that signing statements have legal authority! When is this shit going to stop?

:bounce:

[aquart]

31. What did your letter to CNN say?

[KansDem]

17. What? More scandals? I've barely gotten yesterday's list printed off and read.

So many scandals, so little time...

edited to fix verb...

[geardaddy]

21. And now we're seeing the end of the rule of law

in this country.

Get the pitchforks and torches people. We need to all head to DC to oust this Frankenbush.

[colorado_ufo]

23. Just the surface - it will go much deeper!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. These actions are illegal and dangerous

if Congress lets them get away with it, then Bush has acquired that much more power. What happens in 2008 when Bush decides he's not stepping down?

[glitch]

26. He'll just add a signing statement to some law saying he doesn't have to step down.

He'll surround the White House with Blackwater goons and maybe then it'll be go time.

[Morgana LaFey]

27. Gee, Congressman Conyers, what gave you your first clue?

"The administration is thumbing its nose at the law,"

Did it ever occur to you that someone, some gang of thugs, who stole a national election or several did it in order to do GOOD?

I know Conyers is a good guy, but sooner or later we're going to have to get waaaaaay beyond talk. And he needs to confront Pelosi on some of this and SOMEONE needs to get the ball moving. It's NOT like it's something the public doesn't support (and more WOULD were some of the long list of crimes and misdeed aired to the public):

Harris Poll results leaked, 54% of likely voters favor impeachment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1129958

[HamdenRice]

28. Question -- can anyone explain the quality vs quantity of presidential statements?

It's important to point out that Bush has issued more signing statements than all presidents in history. And it's about time someone actually decided to correlate the government's behavior with the statements.

But it seems that it is rarely pointed out just what was the content of the signing statements of former presidents.

Most of them were bland political thank yous -- like, "Senator Bloviator and Representative Hotair and I have worked hard to reach across the aisle and compromise on this bill and it's a pleasure to sign the Fresh Milk in School Act into law today in the presence of mothers against sour milk ... blah, blah, blah..."

In other words, most signing statements by previous presidents were in favor of the bill being signed. Then presidential pens were handed out and pictures taken. Until this administration they were pretty meaningless, although once in a blue moon a court would cite the signing statement as an explanation of what the law was intended to do.

I would like to know whether there were many (or even any) signing statements by prior presidents that criticized the bill being signed or that threatened not to follow its provisions.

Isn't this a completely new phenomenon?

[Up2Late]

37. "...only the president has the const. authority to decide how to deploy law enforcement officers?!?"

WHAT!?!? :banghead: :mad:

Maybe we should ask our so-called "strict Constructionist Judges" of the SCOTUS to point out where it says that in the Original text of the U.S. Constitution?!?:argh: :rant:

[Uncle Joe]

38. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread YankeyMCC.

[krkaufman]

40. So are govt employees going to be reprimanded or fired ....?

... for failing to properly follow the laws?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

41. OMG!!! We live in a freakin' dictatorship!!!!

:scared: