NYT SMACKS KING BUSH!!! "The Imperial Presidency at Work"

[kpete]

Editorial
The Imperial Presidency at Work

Published: January 15, 2006

..........

Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency. First, he issued a constitutionally ludicrous "signing statement" on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program.

Then Mr. Bush went after the judiciary, scrapping the Levin-Graham bargain. The solicitor general informed the Supreme Court last week that it no longer had jurisdiction over detainee cases. It said the court should drop an existing case in which a Yemeni national is challenging the military tribunals invented by Mr. Bush's morally challenged lawyers after 9/11. The administration is seeking to eliminate all other lawsuits filed by some of the approximately 500 men at Gitmo, the vast majority of whom have not been shown to pose any threat.

Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

Next Article in Opinion (5 of 9) >

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/opinion/15sun2.html
VIA:http://www.talkleft.com/

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Noly crap! NYT sees the writing on the wall!

They know Bush MUST be stopped with the Alito nomination.:thumbsup::bounce:

K&R!

[Toots]

55. Example of how Bush* uses signing statements

Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined "prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."

The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.

<snip>

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it becomes a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

[senseandsensibility]

2. Great article

but I'm a west coaster who knows little, if anything, about the way the NYT works, except for the fact that they hire bushbots like Judy Miller, and they charge for the only columnists I'm interested in reading. This article only proves to me that they know that the rest of their skewed coverage is propaganda, and they print it anyway.

[moc]

3. "Imperial Presidency" must be the meme.

They were saying the other day that the "man on the street" doesn't get what "unitary executive" means and why it is so awful.

We need to call it "imperial presidency", because that's what it is.

[meow2u3]

7. Forget 'unitary executive' or 'imperial presidency'

Let's call a spade a spade. Bush/Cheney are tyrants!

I'd rather call it what the Founding Fathers did: tyranny!

[JWS]

14. That's exactly the truth.

Unitary exec, and Imperial Presidency are just euphamisms for tyranny.

[PATRICK]

54. I agree

We always must use polite words with some hidden value that legitimizes what in actual fact is common dictatorial thuggery, American style. This greatness flavor that flatters the power, flatters the image is diametrically opposite to the common man's eventual perception "It seems to me they are just Nazis."

Underneath the word "imperial" is the self flattering fascination the power establishment, including the
media like the esteemed NYT, has with an inflated sense of self esteem. That is not America. The sum total of our freedom and current power is not a, imperial standard set over the world. Those who believe that over and against all humanity- especially American ideals and freedoms- solemnly intone even their critiques- of one of their own- of a myth overlaid on a simple civil servant's office.

[H2O Man]

22. The Imperial Presidency ....

was the title of Arthur Schlesinger's 1976 best-seller about how the executive branch of the federal government attempts to gain power over the legislative and judicial branches. In it, the noted historian details how the Founding Fathers anticipated that a president could -- especially in times of conflict -- need "emergency" powers, but how easily those powers could be abused. Hence, the book focuses on the remedies the Founding Fathers included in the US Constitution.

The NYT uses that title because of its accuracy, and because it clearly comnpares Bush to Nixon. It goes along with the full-page ads the ACLU has run in the paper.

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. Dictatorial Presidency or Tyrannical Presidency work for me.

[hootinholler]

59. Someone say dictator?

DICK -
Tater

-Hoot

[hvn_nbr_2]

61. Tyrant. Absolute monarch. If he has power to do any thing he damn well...

pleases, then how exactly is he different from an absolute monarch? The question is no longer Democrat or Republican. The question is monarchy or democracy.

[AndyTiedye]

48. The Word You Are Looking for is DICTATORSHIP

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Totally Great Summation. Also Terrifying. I Look To The Day When

All papers across the country have stories like this simultaneously, but not in an op-ed, but as a front page story.

This isn't an opinion piece. It is as factual, intellectual and damning as news is "supposed" to be.

[aquart]

5. And this is my thank you letter:

Gentlemen:

Your lies and distortions placed this would-be king in office, and now you notice what he is? Now?

God damn you to Hell for what you have willingly done to your country.

[driver8]

69. Excellent response!! They are a few years to late with this one.

Where the hell were you when we needed you?

Fuck the New York Times -- piece of shit rag that it is.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. This is an important lesson in the history of America. Congress should

have never, NEVER relinquished its war powers to Bush. It was a mistake, clear and simple and what is Congress going to do to avoid it from happening again?

[mcctatas]

8. Well assuming congress is made up of rational human beings...

it looks like the Senate will not confirm ScAlito and the house will continue to fight for freedom and individual rights....because to do anything else would threaten their job security...oh never mind, we are so SCREWED!:scared::yoiks:

[Beam Me Up]

49. Congress did because they felt they had to as a consequence of 9/11.

But not only 9/11 the events, but how these events were explained by government officials, and how these were then broadcast 'unquestionably' by ALL THE MEDIA--not only the NYT. Never mind that the scenario they've fostered upon the world can not possibly be true. The "smoking gun" has always been right in front of us; its just a matter of taking off the blinders and looking at precisely what is there. But isn't it interesting that this "revelation" is not talked about by anyone, anywhere, except a few so called 'nut cases'.

The story that we've been told about 9/11 is a FRAUD, the perfect set up for the FRADULANT PRESIDENCY.

Once you lift up the rock, hard to know what is going to slither out. However, one thing is clear: Until Truth is told such that it can be believed, only madness can reign in our world.

One wonders, are there "degrees" of madness? Or, can Reason be prevailed upon any longer to Represent the sane?

[journalist3072]

9. Kicked and nominated, damn it! However, if the NY Times

wants to take on Bush's imperial presidency, then why did they wait an entire year before reporting on the spy program?

[kpete]

11. Tonight --- I welcome the NYT back to America

Lets just hope that the Leadership (Democrats AND Republicans) are listening and have the guts to act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[journalist3072]

12. I'm afraid we'll have to keep waiting on that one

I don't know why, but for some reason a great number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill don't seem to be too interested in exercising their oversight function.

I forget who it was, but one of the Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee told Samuel Alito this week to not "lose any sleep" over the fact that he did not recuse himself in the Vanguard case.

He had promised the Senate during his last confirmation hearings for his current postion, that he would recuse himself. He did not, and one of the Rethuglicans on the Judiciary Committee told him during the hearings this week not to lose any sleep over it.

[Petreader]

17. Alito confirmation

You must be kidding if you think the Republicraps are listening ! This piece of scum is going to get confirmed. :(

[kpete]

19. not kidding, just hoping

[WhereThereIsFire]

43. I agree ... the repugs will add this criminal to the supremes ...

and we should all be crying real tears not that crocodile crap that madame scalito spewed.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[TahitiNut]

42. I predict some Executive Editorial personnel changes at the NYTimes.

The internal politics at the Times is probably quite awesome right now. I foresee some heavy-handed changes in the near future.

[driver8]

70. The NYT has a lot more work to do before I welcome them back...

They have played a large part in creating this mess that we are in.

One article isn't going to cut it. They owe this country big time!!

[Beam Me Up]

10. The NYT will not regain my respect until it begins to tell the truth.

This is a beginning. A good one but still only a beginning.

When they tell the truth about 9/11--which, even in their own article is the CORE foundation, the core belief through which the Bush presidency has argued the RIGHT to such power--then they will begin to regain our respect. Then we will know that they are ready to help redefine the reality THAT IS THE HISTORY OF AMERICA BEING WRITTEN AS IT HAPPENS.

We know what a whore she's been in the past. I'm not holding my breath.

[DELUSIONAL]

13. I don't consider NYT as a trust worthy news source

Nice that they come out with opinion pieces like this -- but they held back on vital news and a whole lot of blood is going to be on their hands.

[JWS]

16. The NYTimes is probably the worst news corporation

except for all the others.

W. Churchill

[kpete]

15. "A BEGINNING"

Is what we have been working for - A NEW BEGINNING - I will take it...

[Beam Me Up]

27. We're willing to take any amo she'll give us but its going to take more,

a lot more than this, to alter THE PERCEPTION OF LEGITIMACY that this Preident and his extremist regime claim by deceit.

[Gloria]

44. Yeah, let's see how many snide remarks creep into the coverage of Gore's

speech on Monday....

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. I'm waiting for them to expose the issue of election fraud

in a serious manner. Until a media outlet does that, I will consider them a tool of the dictatorship.

[gratuitous]

18. Wakey, wakey Mr. Sulzberger

The plain truth of what's been happening for the last six years right before your insipid face finally sinking in, is it Pinch? Will the tone of this editorial become standard for the Times, or is this just a momentary release of bile before going back to Elisabeth Bumiller's weekly valentines and the rest of your supine reportage?

You have much to atone for, Times. This rights the ledger ever so slightly, but there are many, many entries to go.

[The Doctor.]

20. Shoot! Which DU'er said that Miers was just a distraction....

I can't remember.

I thought so too, but a longtime DU'er said;

'look, Harriet Miers is the distraction - she's been put up to draw all the opposition off. Then, right after they use her to make Dems look bad, they'll float a real conservative that, by comparison, will look like sparkling SC material.'

(not precisely... heavily paraphrased.

We all thought so... it made sense, but I can't remember who posted that.

[EFerrari]

24. I came to that conclusion and posted it in a thread of Neil's.

But I believe you are talking about some other DUer.

[missouri dem 2]

21. I just wish that the Times had had a companion piece

to this editorial detailing all of their complicity with the Imperial Presidency and begging for forgiveness. All the Imperial Lies fit to print.

[hopeisaplace]

23. Holy Crap is right!

I can't believe it...I cannot believe what I am reading...
TRUTH. Well I'll be a mother-friggin' monkey's uncle.
Hell just froze over.

well well feakin well well...there is a god.

[farmbo]

25. "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand..."

Its too late for the NYT. They've got blood on their hands and one hard hitting editorial will not wash it off.

They made Bush possible by spiking story after critical story during the 2004 election, and by refusing to examine legitimate stories of election fraud thereafter.

Now they're repenting...on the very eve of Bush's takeover of the Supreme Court; the final stage of Rove's plan to exterminate Democratic political opposition for generations.

Too little too late, Assholes.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[EFerrari]

26. Btw, kpete, the NYT public editor sent me an acknowledgment

yesterday in response to my "I call you out" thread. It didn't really say anything but it wasn't one of those forms.

He wanted to let me, and maybe you all, too, know that he read the mail.

:toast:

[kpete]

28. Please translate sfexpat

[EFerrari]

33. I posted a thread calling out the NYT for sitting on the NSA

story AND telling us we were internet conspiracy wackos when we wanted them to look into the OH election 2004. And, as promised, I mailed it to the managing editor and to the public editor.

I got the roboresponse right away.

Then, yesterday afternoon, I got an email from the public editor. He simply acknowledged receiving and reading my mail.

[Beam Me Up]

29. Do you have a link to that thread? I don't want to miss it.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

31. Do you mean the original thread? That is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5629422

I haven't posted a thread about the reply. :hi:

[Beam Me Up]

32. Yes, that is what I meant, thanks!

It's all coming back to me now! (Old age, ya know.)

[EFerrari]

35. Were you talking to me?

:rofl:

[kpete]

34. you have humbled me

thanks for the info sfexpat. I guess I will go back to reality now...

[EFerrari]

36. I don't understand? Lol!

You do a lot of heavy lifting around here.

Thank you!

[kpete]

37. sometimes my optimism gets in the way of my sanity

[Skittles]

30. too little, WAY too late

they should have their jobs a long time ago

[gulfcoastliberal]

40. Buyers remorse?

They sold the douchebush like he was some great person, as Kit Seelye trashed Gore mercilessly. Fuck the NYT.

[Dan]

38. Sad smile....

Whether we appreciate it or not, we now are two nations, awaiting that significant event that will make it official.

Bush in winning, ensured this nation as we knew it, would not endure.

[savemefromdumbya]

39. All hail to the chief

[Rageneau]

41. The NYT is a billion days late and a trillion dollars short

I fear the old grey lady has shaken off her comforter of complacency too late to do anything now that will stop Bush. They should have been onto him all along.

Even today, they are pulling their punches.

This editorial warns about Alito, but doesn't say STOP ALITO!!!

Nor does it say IMPEACH BUSH!!!

If the NYT can't say those things, it is far too late for them to say anything else.

[hopeisaplace]

46. when you put it like this, I really see this point and worry

..worry that it is indeed too late.


edit: typo again

[f-bush]

45. Shit it is about time

Go for it, we need impeachment and we need to be drumming this about each and every single day.

[oasis]

47. Kick. Thanks Kpete for posting. "Bush's expansion of power" endangers

our Constitution and the peace of the planet.

[WilliamPitt]

52. About. FUCKING . Time.

[greiner3]

53. Who will take down b***?

The only instrument left is SCOTUS. And that's been padded.

[Dunvegan]

56. If "Imperial Presidency" is too many syllables for some folks to chaw on..

...just call him what he WANTS to be called...

King George

[DeepModem Mom]

57. For God's sake, can we, at least, try for a FILIBUSTER...

to stop this madness -- or even just to try and wake up people to what's happening???

[msongs]

58. don't you wish the US had an oppostion political party that opposes? nt

[YankeyMCC]

60. How is it that the right

will scream and scream over "judicial" activism and about the "will of the people" as manifest in legislators (like say congress) but support an legal "activist" president?

I know the first answer the comes to mind is simple cynicism that since it's "their" president they'll let him do whatever he wants. But it's also "their" congress.

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

[hvn_nbr_2]

62. Is the NYT bear coming out of hibernation?

I'd like to hope so and there have been a couple recent signs, but I'm reserving judgment for awhile. Last summer we thought the press was starting to wake up.

[mom cat]

63. Filabuster, filabuster, filabuster, filabuster, filabuster, filabuster.

We have to keep up the push. We can't lose the court with no fight!

[BrklynLiberal]

64. Where were they when it would have been courageous to say this?

When it might have made a difference?
Too little too late.....
My subscription is STILL cancelled.

[RazzleDazzle]

65. kpaete; KING of the "I will NOT post permalink" DUers

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013706.html

ain't it a shame? absolutely pathetic, if you ask me. It's not like it hasn't been pointed out to him: a) why it's important and b) HOW to do it and c) that it takes absolutely no longer to post the permalink than to post the home page link. Shame, shame, shame, pete. Shame.

[kpete]

67. I am SO sorry

Why don't you help me out. My learning curve is slow. I must admit - I still am not sure what or where a permalink is. Sorry If Ive offended you. And by the way, I am not a KING...

[senseandsensibility]

68. Well, I for one

am grateful for the post. It brightened my day, permalink or not!:-)

[Melissa G]

66. Rec 50 ! Enough of the Imperial Residency! Kick the squatter out!

And Keep Alito out!