A must-read article about Bush*, the "unitary executive"

[DemBones DemBones]

"The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?"

If you don't know about presidential signing statements, the "unitary executive," and the theory of "departmentalism" or "coordinate construction" concocted by lawyers who believe that the president has the authority to interpret the law, obviously a flagrant disregard of the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers and system of checks and balances, you need to read this article, written by a journalist with a law degree.

From the article :

"When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement. That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed."

(If you're like me, you had to read that twice, thinking "What the. . ." while doing so.)

<snip>


"President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322."


"In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means."


Read the entire article here:


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

[lvx35]

1. Why do they bother?

To construct legal theories that say that the president interprets the law? If they are right, they don't need legal theories at all, what the president does is right, unconditionally.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. To con those who have never read the Constitution and paid little

attention to discussions of it in school? To con themselves into thinking a democratic republic can have a king?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. great closing too..

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

"In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. "

The unitary executive doctrine conflicts with Paine's principle - one that is fundamental to our constitutional system. If Bush can ignore or evade laws, then the law is no longer king. Americans need to decide whether we are still a country of laws - and if we are, we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.



Rememer the charts on the floor showing how much debt * racked up compared to all former US Presidents? They need to run an ad showing the number of times he has written in loopholes for himself.
:mad:

[rodeodance]

3. yes, visual graphs tend to grasp peoples attention better.

......Rememer the charts on the floor showing how much debt * racked up compared to all former US Presidents? They need to run an ad showing the number of times he has written in loopholes for himself.
:mad:

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Agreed, and I'm delighted you read the whole article -- so often

people just read the excerpt in the OP. Had you ever heard any of this info before? It was news to me and shocked me badly. It's just impossible to keep up with all that's going on, but why aren't the media mentioning this? (Rhetorical question; we know why!)

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. I remember it being a controversy in Bush I

but I had no idea it was this expansive.

Thank you.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Kicking this because of Sam Alito, a true believer in the unitary

executive nonsense.