Why did Bush sign so many "signing statements"?

[kentuck]

Because the sorry son of a bitch knew he was breaking the law and he was using it as a defense if he was ever caught or called on it. He knew he was breaking the law but he found what he thought was a small technicality that other Presidents had used from time to time and decided to use it to cover up his criminality.

[bdamomma]

1. Bush does not give a shit about laws, or the Constitution

he is abusing the power he has and feels like he could anything he wants, he will until to do so, until he is challenged.

[msongs]

2. he has no effective opposition so why not do whatever he wants? nt

[subterranean]

3. I don't think it was Bush's idea originally

Others in the administration, notably Cheney, had a well-known and long-standing goal of increasing (they view it as "restoring") the power of the executive branch. I think they saw the signing statements as one way of doing that. That's my guess, anyway.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. Sounds about right. If he's ever called on any of it, he says...

"I told you at the time how I was interpreting the issue. Why didn't you say something THEN if you didn't like it?"

[yellerpup]

5. Yep, exactly.

Reminds me of the Iran-Contra mess where Oliver North was convicted and had his conviction overturned on a technicality. My Repug neighbor crowed that Ollie had been "exonorated", which he wasn't. This group is constantly breaking the law and I expect that if they remain in power all the lawbreakers will eventually be pardoned or similarly "exonerated." Disgusting.

[genie_weenie]

6. I don't understand how "siging statements" are allowed.

I am completely confused. Why are these allowed? How are they legal?

[kentuck]

9. They are not legal..

In some instances, where the President has authority under the Executive office, where , for example, the Congress did not authorize the funds to make sure the law they passed is obeyed, then the President could sign a statement showing the inconsistencies in the law and could sign a statement. However, he does not have the authority to sign a statement saying that he can torture if he wants to...

[The Cleaner]

7. John Dean comes out with a new book today

and talks about Bush's authoritarianism.

It's too much. It's impeachable. No President should be above the law.

[KharmaTrain]

8. What Happens When You Have Full Control

This is what can and does happen when one party gets control of all the levers of power and that party is hijacked by an elite who not only wants the power but isn't afraid to use it. This regime has long had an "in your face" attitude about any kind of criticism be it legal or illegal. Chenney in specific has re-written the separation of powers and knows he can intimidate Hastert and Frist and then stonewall in the courts...even if there's a challenge to power and authority, it's going to take a long time and cost a price to whomever tries to push it. In the meantime, this regime makes hay while the sun shines...fleecing the treasury and strictly governing for their benefactors...or those they've fooled into believing they are benefactors.

I've been watching this press conference on C-SPAN and like others, I'm appauled. However, I see a regime that sits back and laughs as it knows that as long as it has such a grip on power...and the corporate media, they will avoid any real scrutiny. As long as they can scare enough sheeple into the concept of a "war on terror" or some boogie man scratching at their door, they'll continue to use power as they see fit with just the perfunctory motions of legal technicalities.

Until one of the branches of government is allowed to be adversarial in a far more aggresive mode...specifically meaning a Democratic controlled House starting in January, 2007...this regime will continue to ignore any "rule of law" as they feel they can change or ammend or pardon their way out of any real mess. And they're right.

[derby378]

10. It's a de facto line-item veto

Nero wants to have his cake and eat it, too.