Dictator Bush issues order to "ignore" Congress? WTF?

[BR_Parkway]

He just stated that he'd issued an executive order to all agencies to ignore any earmarks that weren't voted on by Congress. While I actually agree with the concept that the Congress needs to vote openly for this crap - where does he get off suspending even more of the Constitution?

[4dsc]

1. Talking up all his failed policies

Looks like nothing more than a political speech.. Same ole same ole..

[fascisthunter]

2. Who Will Stop Him?

Seems Congress likes Bush and what he has done to this country. They give him everything he wants with little or no fight at all.

[hisownpetard]

15. Exactly. So why shouldn't he continue to pilfer and plunder this country, till

there's nothing left.
The people who have enabled him are just as responsible as he is (or, well, almost).

The only thing that should've been knocked off the table were Bush's elbows.

[msongs]

he knows the dems in congress are all afraid of him so why not? nt

[spanone]

3. congress makes the laws

[Traveling_Home]

5. Is there a law on this?

No earmarks in question were voted on - We should jump on the opportunity and make this our own issue - both Obama and Clinton supported a hold on earmarks.

[kestrel91316]

4. I'm SO DONE with this freak.

This guy needs to be __________. Use your imagination, folks - you know me well enough.

[Donnachaidh]

8. so TOTALLY with you kestrel

My imagination has been working overtime on this issue. :grr:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. This is the third time today that I am offering a link to an excellent video in re to Herr Diktator

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3006890&mesg_id=3006959

(thanks again to Echo In Light)

[shraby]

7. If the earmarks are in a bill, and the bill is

approved and sent to the president, it means that congress HAS voted on it. Hopefully he'll run into a buzzsaw on this.

[Traveling_Home]

13. Earmarks don't work that way.

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking

Definitions
An earmark refers to congressional provisions directing approved funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees). Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.<1> Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. don't count on it... remember his propaganda minister Her Karl?>...

Bush would never make a comment like this without first checking with his reich-minister. Stay tuned for more, as the newest Rovian plan unfolds.

[onenote]

18. the executive order specifically is limited to non statutory earmarks

i.e., earmarks not included in the actual legislation. Those who are bitching about this executive order are barking up the wrong tree. It would not be politically astute to attack chimpy on this one.

[underpants]

9. This doesn't take effect until next year-he has trumpeted this before

there WAS however a report just the other day about agencies not following the law due to following signing statements.

[AndyA]

10. I wonder what our rubber spined Congressional Leaders are going to say about this.

He's basically told them to fuck themselves, their work means nothing.

Impeachment really needs to be put on the table. At the very least, it would throttle Bush down a bit, and would prevent him from doing massive damage before he leaves office, which he seems dead set on doing.

[Indenturedebtor]

11. Sigh

Another parallel to Star Wars.

"We have decided to dissolve the Senate for the good of the Republik"




I wonder if the Dems will let this sack of crap smack them around again :(

[guitar man]

12. The Emperor

has permanently dissolved that misguided body. The last remnants of the Old Republic have now been swept away.....

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

16. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

We're spending billions per week in Iraq. BUT DON'T PAY FOR THOSE EARMARKS!

[alfredo]

17. A large percentage of the earmarks come from bush, not congress. The

last military authorization bill contain many earmarks. Some 60% came from the White House.

[onenote]

19. Actually, chimpy is on solid ground, legally and politcally on this one

The executive order in quesiton only applies to non-statutory earmarks -- efforts by members of congress to direct specific spending without putting into law. Most often such 'soft' earmarks are contained in an "explanatory" statement that accompanies the law -- sort of Congress' version of a signing statement, if you will. While legislative history is a valid tool for interpreting ambiguous language in a statute, its only an interpretative tool, its not binding law. Put another way, if Ted Stevens puts an instruction into an explanatory statment that $XX of an agency's budget is to be used to build a bridge to nowhere, and the agency doesn't build the bridge to nowhere, do you think someone could successfully sue the agency to spend the money based on the explanatory statement?

Again, if chimpy tried to instruct an agency not to comply with a statutory earmark, that would be unconstitutional. But why we would defend soft earmarks is something I can't quite understand, unless suddenly we're in favor of bridges to nowhere being hidden in explanatory statemetns.

[zbdent]

20. one freeptard on topix.net was saying "The Clintons stole the dishes ..."

Well, Bush and Cheney and company raided the Treasury ... which crime is worse?