George W. Bush, a Judiciary of One - Torture to Wire Tapping - Collins/Scoop

[autorank]

Link: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00264.htm

M. Collins: George W. Bush, A Judiciary Of One
Saturday, 15 September 2007, 11:12 am
Opinion: Michael Collins

George W. Bush, A Judiciary Of One

Signing the 21st Century Nanotechnology R & D Act, all the better to bug you.
Signing statement issued. Objections 297 - 301. Image

Presidential Signing Statements

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The Bush-Cheney White House is responsible for the birth of a judiciary of one.. When the president signs legislation passed by Congress, he frequently adds his own signing statement stating those legislative provisions he intends to ignore based on his interpretation of the Constitution. This caused the New York Times to note, “President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes.”

Through the magic of the president’s petulant pen, signing statements never mentioned in the Constitution, Bush has ordered the torture of prisoners and spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant. Just have the boys in the back room knock out one of those signing statements. It’s all good.
But this seems odd. We’ve never seen a creature quite like this before. As Common Sense Common Grounds poster Noonan points out, the U.S. Constitution describes the division of federal powers in a fashion that even a sixth grader can understand.

The following is from the American Barr Association’s Law Day curriculum for elementary school students.

Grades 4-6
Separation of Powers: Connecting the Separate Powers
Objectives Students will:

• Understand the concept of separation of powers.
• Recognize how the Constitution provides for separation of powers.
• Categorize public officials into one of three branches of government.

Apparently the current occupants of the White House were so clever they skipped the sixth grade. This was evidenced most recently when Vice President Cheney tried to tell the House Government Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he wasn’t a member of the executive branch. Which branch might you belong to, he was asked? Unfortunately Cheney backed down without uttering what was probably on his mind, “The only one that counts, my branch you fools!”

The Limited Use of Signing Statements in the Past

It is not uncommon for a president to attach a signing statement to legislation outlining the importance and significance of the act either to the public or government agencies. These are called rhetorical and political signing statements.. They don’t change or challenge laws passed. Broad based constitutional signing statements, uncommon in the past, are now a very serious matter. Essentially, the chief executive states that he will not enforce parts of legislation that he signs into law because he thinks it is unconstitutional, a power not granted to the president.

Jennifer Van Bergen cites James Madison’s most salient argument against this executive hubris:

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny

Legal scholar, Neil Kinkopf carries Madison’s analysis forward:

The assertion of a presidential power to refuse to enforce a law stands in deep tension with the constitution. As the Supreme court has repeatedly recognized, the take care clause--which provides that the President "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed"--establishes that the President does not hold the royal prerogative of a dispensing power, which is the power to dispense with or suspend the execution of the laws. The take care clause, then, makes plain that the President is duty-bound to enforce all the laws, whether he agrees with them or not.

If a president feels compelled to issue a signing statement, it’s expected that he will proceed only when a dire constitutional violation is involved He should attempt to get the sections he finds abjectly unconstitutional changed by Congress and also take the matter to the Courts. President Clinton objected to a defense bill requiring immediate discharge of military personnel with HIV AIDS. After the signing statement, he tried to reverse this legislatively and took it to court. This was the rare exception, not the rule until 2001.

The Bush Signing Statements – Slouching Toward Tyranny

It’s no surprise that the two previous reigning champions of signing statements include former President’s Reagan and George H.W. Bush. But their record is nothing compared to the 43rd president. He signs with a vengeance invoking broad constitutional powers foreign to the executive branch. He is a self proclaimed judiciary of one.

Unless Bush thought this up on his own, it was some strange council that urged the frequent use of the aberrant practice. Cheney, Gonzales, or Ted Olson, who knows? There’s a long list of suspects.
Despite having a Republican Congress for the first six years of his reign, Bush issued signing statements containing 1046 constitutional challenges to the legislation that he’s signed. There are two common elements.

The first is petulance. If he wants to ignore any part of a bill that Congress passes, Bush simply issues a signing statement and implements his subversive scheme. As Kinkopf said earlier, “… the President does not hold the royal prerogative of a dispensing power … the power to dispense with or suspend the execution of the laws.”

The second element involves an Orwellian process of creating meaningless words that support the process. The key words are unitary executive. Stripping away historical distortions, “the unitary executive is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.”

Legal scholar and former Reagan Justice Department official, Bruce Fein, testified before Congress and explained how the process works. Fein pointed out that the Bush signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibited torture, lead to a 180 degree change in the law:

…unitary executive and Commander in Chief powers (used in the signing statement) clearly signify that President Bush is asserting that he is constitutionally entitled to commit torture if he believes it would assist the gathering of foreign intelligence. President Bush nullified a provision of statute that he had signed into law and which he was then obliged to faithfully execute.
Bruce Fein, June 27, 2006, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Torture and White House protest courtesy of signing statements. War supporters in the background exercise their constitutional rights by suggesting that the protesters wires be turned live. WikiMedia Commons and MatthewBradley, Creative Commons

Perpetual Power Consolidated

Perpetual presidential power consolidated is the purpose of these statements. An historical interpretation places the emergence of signing statements in the context of declining presidential power as a result of the Viet Nam War and Watergate. In reaction to these events, chief executives, particularly the current Bush, tasked their Office of Legal Counsel to find a way to accumulate more power for the executive branch.

While this effort has achieved spectacular results, I argue that the diminished presidential powers after Nixon were more in line with the correct vision of the Constitution’s authors. Their skepticism regarding absolute power was based on first hand experience with rule by a mad monarch plus strong historical evidence. The Parliamentarian victory in the English Civil War brought the possibility of popular rule to the British Isles. As good students of history, they were aware of how that promise was undone by the restoration of monarchy, tyranny by definition, leading to the aggregation of power in the hands of one – the king.

The progress of the United States since the 1950’s is marred by one failure after another due to the delusions allowed by solitary executive functioning. The net gains from the following executive actions are negligible, the losses irredeemable: Viet Nam; massive civil rights violations related to voting, employment, and First Amendment freedoms; the Iran-Contra affair; the several hundred military incursions in foreign lands; 1,000 U.S. military installations in over 60 countries; and the pervasive tragedy of Iraq.

These adventures concocted by presidential tyranny reflect more on the need to control the human lust for power than they do on any rational policy. The costs are subtracted directly from progress made in science, commerce, and the expansion of the creativity and benefits by a population willing to work, experiment, and achieve.

A Whimper Not a Bang

Former Nixon counsel and journalist John Dean discussed the Bush abuse of signing statements. He anticipated a strong reaction from Congress.

In short, Bush's signing statements, which are now going over the top, are going to cause a reaction. It is inevitable. If Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate - and perhaps even if they don't, if the subject is torture or an egregious violation of civil liberties -- then the Bush/Cheney administration will wish it had not issued all those signing statements. John Dean 1/13/06

Wishful thinking for a legislative body which somehow keeps forgetting these words from the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1)

The Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate. But, alas, the reaction of Congress to the unitary executive and his scribbling is barely noticeable. Perhaps the next president will begin his term by attaching a simple note to the first legislation he or she signs: “I will take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

ENDS

Resources:

• Index of Presidential Signing Statements 2001-2007
• 2001-2007 George W. Bush Index to the Signing Statements
• Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. Van Bergen

Permission to reproduce in whole or in part with a link to this article in “Scoop” and attribution of authorship.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. The Greeding of America!!! Good Stuff!!!

[autorank]

21. It's really hard to understand how anything can go on with all this torture & death.

The British now say that the civilian death total in Iraq is 1,000,000. These are deaths that would not have happened absent an invasion. ONE MILLION.

Ever hear that discussed aside from her and places with similar sympathies?

We're overdrawn on our line of credit.

Greed has reached the point of self destruction.

[rodeodance]

2. this really rather sums up the WH conduct----increase in executive power and

while it has been curtailed somewhat----they go full steam--like last night.

[autorank]

22. They live in their own fantasy land, always making sure they're never held to

account by constantly upping the ante. Well someone is going to call their bet and then it will
be time for them to find a new home or a new set of excuses...

They make the Harding administration look good.

[Me.]

3. The Birth Of Tyranny?

Who will stand against it?

[autorank]

18. And the Republicans act like it's a normal turn of events. n/t

[lonestarnot]

4. Excellent Excellent! Bookie the post for links.

Tanks autorank.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Prisoner 345 It's a number, just a number

Prisoner 345 It's a number, just a number

http://www.prisoner345.net /
Time in Guantanamo
1919 days




They took Carl von Ossietsky And broke his body - but not his mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tn0fdKsQWg



Prisoner 562

Half a thousand, half a hundred
Six times two, pick up your pen
Child, my child, count it up now
That's the number that I mean

It's a number, just a number
One of hundreds, a sign of shame
Each man's jacket had a number
Men had numbers, none had names

Hitler's system took their freedom
Took them prisoner, one by one
For the courage of their convictions
They were tortured, gassed and burned

They took communist, they took pacifist
They took social democrat
Jew and Christian all were prisoner
In the concentration camp

To the camp of Esterwegen
Listen child and understand
They took Carl von Ossietsky
And broke his body - but not his mind

In Berlin upon the 4th of May
19 hundred and 38
The Gestapo with its treatment
Signed his death certificate

Five-six-two his prison number
Listen, child, I beg you please
Keep in mind, always remember,
He got the Nobel Prize for Peace

In the struggle against injustice
He fought hard and he fought long
Child - remember Ossietsky
Peace won't come by words alone


Words and music: Oswald Andrae
Song Lyric as sung by Dick Gaughan


Song of Choice


Early every year the seeds are growing
Unseen, unheard they lie beneath the ground
Would you know before their leaves are showing
That with weeds all your garden will abound?

If you close your eyes, stop your ears
Shut your mouth then how can you know ?
For seeds you cannot hear may not be there
Seeds you cannot see may never grow

In January you've still got the choice
You can cut the weeds before they start to bud
If you leave them to grow high they'll silence your voice
And in December you may pay with your blood

So close your eyes, stop your ears,
Shut your mouth and take it slow
Let others take the lead and you bring up the rear
And later you can say you didn't know

Every day another vulture takes flight
There's another danger born every morning
In the darkness of your blindness the beast will learn to bite
How can you fight if you can't recognise a warning?

Today you may earn a living wage
Tomorrow you may be on the dole
Though there's millions going hungry you needn't disengage
For it's them, not you, that's fallen in the hole

It's alright for you if you run with the pack
It's alright if you agree with all they do



If fascism is slowly climbing back



It's not here yet so what's it got to do with you?

The weeds are all around us and they're growing
It'll soon be too late for the knife
If you leave them on the wind that around the world is blowing
You may pay for your silence with your life

So close your eyes, stop your ears,
Shut your mouth and never dare
And if it happens here they'll never come for you
Because they'll know you really didn't care

Peggy Seeger

[autorank]

19. Until Impeachment happens, we're all prisoners of choice.

Thanks for including that. What a disgrace.

A lot to answer for soon.

[puebloknot]

24. Perfect! Thanks. nt

[defendandprotect]

6. However . . . I read somewhere recently, that actually Congress has the power to defeat this crap -

Evidently Congress has the power to ensure that the legislation they pass is carried out with the "spirt and intent" they intended --

[autorank]

8. There last control is impeachment.

Since the executive controls the branches, that's the only place for the orders to originate.

I don't know if anybody is even tracking this stuff. You'd think that they would do that. Not
readily accessible. We'll see. Trump has the right idea for Bush, "You're fired!!!"

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. Has anyone told you recently

that you are a brilliant journalist? (if not, "they" should)

:applause:

[Kurovski]

7. K&R

:kick:

[mmonk]

9. Great stuff. Thanks for posting.

Send a copy to a democrat in congress today. Unless it changes, we're entering an age of elective dictatorships. Maybe this is what the two parties want.

[autorank]

20. Makes you wonder doesn't it. Thanks!

Do fax this to your member of Congress. Time to wake up. They'll be asked, asked at some point, what were you doing when all this went on, particularly the REPUBLICAN leadership (sic).

[merh]

11. It's so obvious that most can't see it - the reason GWB wants us

at war with Iraq is to protect him and his gang from impeachment.

All of the dems think about it, have considered it but they hear the media screams

"how do you impeach the president during war time"

If you think defunding the war efforts cause them political dilemmas, just consider trying to impeach the clown in chief.

GWB has sanctioned/ordered/committed more crimes while in office than all the prisoners in B block at your local prison.

The war protects the warring president.

And murders thousands :cry:

[msedano]

12. sadly, literally, that's true...

seems this describes exactly what's happened. the administration has seen to the public execution of the constitution. whacked it up on a cross with signing statements. thanx for the resources. i wonder if some fervid christian fundamentalist conceived the unitary executive on the model of the triune god. the father, the son, the holy shit it's dick cheney!?

“I will take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

recommended

[autorank]

14. Hey buddy;) Cut and paste error.

When I cut and pasted I collapsed the 1st two sentences, a new form of screw up even for me. It should read:

"The Bush-Cheney White House is responsible for the birth of a new constitutional doctrine. He has elevated himself to become a judiciary of one. "

What next? 3-D text!

[bleever]

13. Don't defund; impeach.

That's the way to stop it. Defunding might look bad, but impeachment goes straight to the authority to declare and conduct war, and how that's been subverted by lies and crimes.

Cheney first!

[autorank]

15. Perfect!

They threatened Cheney with that. They should just go back an do it. When he asks why, the
repsonse could be "It just seemed like a good idea at the time."

:evilgrin:

[lonestarnot]

16. Kick

[Richard Steele]

17. K&R

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. EXCELLENT and so vitally important!!! Here's what John Dean said

about these unconstitutional signing statements in January 2006:

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration

By JOHN W. DEAN

(snip)

Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0700611800/findlaw-20). Cooper has updated his material in a recent essay for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, to encompass the use of signing statements by now-President Bush as well.

By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

(snip)

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.

(snip)

Even the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

(snip)

John Dean ends this Jan 2006 essay with the optimistic comment that Bush will eventually rue all those unconstitutional signing statements because after Republicans lose control of the House or Senate, the "ire" of Congress over the Executive Branch ignorning its laws will result in "blowback." Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the House has shown little spine about ANYTHING, let alone standing up to the clearly illegal and very dangerous actions of the Bush WH in issuing signing statements that effectively make him a dictator. Dean was wrong about balance being restored when Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. Further, when this eventually goes to the Supreme Court, the installation of the Bush judges openly supporting "unitary executive" - read "dictatorship" - threatens to overturn both crystal-clear judicial precedent AND, finally, the Constitution itself. One more Bush judge and it will happen. And the health of some of the five justices who stand against his four is fragile.

We must must must pressure Congress into fighting this blatant march to not only dictatorship, but insane, war-mongering, murderous, monstrously greedy dictatorship.

I would add that the signing statements are one part of the "legalization" of the overturning of constitutional democracy by the Bush White House. The other part of this "legalization" is the mass of EXECUTIVE ORDERS. The signing statements are mostly statements of how he'll IGNORE whatever in legally passed laws he doesn't like. The Executive Orders, on the other hand, state what he does plan to do, usually sweeping and obviously unconstitutional power grabs "justified" by "national security," ever a prime excuse of dictators. And they are MONSTROUS and mostly overlooked by the public.

Here is the White House web page with a compilation of Executive Orders:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders

Here are a few links to recent discussions on Executive Orders over the past few months. This is by no means a carefully selected batch - just a few that I had seen and bookmarked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1369934
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1376028
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1502078
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/04/2981/

Oh yes, they do believe they can get away with all this. Here is Tony Snow, explaining early this year about how Bush has the ultimate power to determine what is constitutional and what is not. Events have shown that this jaw-dropping statement reflects the actual WH position:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2213034

(Eric Brewer): "But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?"

(Tony Snow): "No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself."

Finally, remember that there are also SECRET executive orders. About a week ago we were hearing how the Bush White House's plans for installing martial law in the event of a "crisis," including dissolving Congress of course, have been kept secret EVEN FROM CONGRESS. (Sorry, I didn't keep a link.) When are they planning to move on this?

[puebloknot]

27. Here's a link to an article which explains what you refer to....

... I think. (If this isn't it, it's bad enough.)

http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0\

Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007 modifies the Insurrection Act and deals yet another blow to the Posse Comitatus Act. “Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, ‘Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,’” explains Morales. “Section 333, ‘Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law’ states that ‘the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (’refuse’ or ‘fail’ in) maintaining public order, ‘in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.’”

For the current President, “enforcement of the laws to restore public order” means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against “disorderly” citizenry—protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called “illegal aliens,” “potential terrorists” and other “undesirables” for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That’s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency” and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. Link to a thread about the martial law plan being kept secret from Congress:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x52862
thread title (9-8-07): MARTIAL LAW PLAN KEPT SECRET FROM CONGRESS

[puebloknot]

29. Thanks! I hadn't seen that! nt

[puebloknot]

25. K&R But a lot of Democrats are satisfied with what our "leaders" are doing!

They're "doing oversight," after all!

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

[DemReadingDU]

26. Evening kick

:hi: