The latest signing statements by Bush indicate that he will either fail to comply with, or just ignore, these provisions that were in the latest National Defense Authorization Act:
* the establishment of a commission to investigate contractor fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq
* the protection or whistleblowers who report contractor fraud from harassment or official retribution
* a requirement that US intelligence agencies respond to Congressional requests for documents
* a ban on funding for any permanent military bases in Iraq, and on any actions that would seek to give the US control over Iraq's oil resources or oil money.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12544
Granted, he is not the only president to use signing statements - though he is very prolific - but given that congress is so divided along party lines and unlikely to ever knock these signing statements back, do you agree with the concept of signing statements?
The link above has quite a clear explanation of the constitution's intent with regards to la making.
Originally posted by treetalkIf any President fails to execute the will of the Congress as manifested in a law that he did not veto and which is upheld in the courts, that is grounds for impeachment.
The latest signing statements by Bush indicate that he will either fail to comply with, or just ignore, these provisions that were in the latest National Defense Authorization Act:
* the establishment of a commission to investigate contractor fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq
* the protection or whistleblowers who report contractor fraud from harassment ...[text shortened]... nk above has quite a clear explanation of the constitution's intent with regards to la making.
I am beginning to think that the Congress should prepare to impeach whichever President is elected, early in their first tem. And prepare for a second impeachment to follow soon after. This threat should be carried through with the very first signing statement that suggests that the President is going to 'interpret' laws.
The Congress is the most direct representative of the will of the people and it CANNOT be toyed with if we are to remain free. If it permits this sort of thing, Congress will dissolve into as powerless a body as the later Roman Senate -- and goodbye democracy in the US.
Bush has nudged the Nation one very dangerous step closer -- and a lot closer than many of us would have believed possible.
Originally posted by spruce112358I am not trying to rise your ire...but...at any rate. Does this really matter? From what I've seen over past years, laws legislatures pass don't matter one whit as you've ceased being ruled by your elected representatives.
If any President fails to execute the will of the Congress as manifested in a law that he did not veto and which is upheld in the courts, that is grounds for impeachment.
I am beginning to think that the Congress should prepare to impeach whichever President is elected, early in their first tem. And prepare for a second impeachment to follow soon aft e very dangerous step closer -- and a lot closer than many of us would have believed possible.
It doesn't seem to matter what laws are on the books, your (un-elected) judicial bench makes law in opposition to what is voted for in legislature.
Originally posted by MacSwainI thought this was less of a problem lately, though there was a time when it was true to some extent.
I am not trying to rise your ire...but...at any rate. Does this really matter? From what I've seen over past years, laws legislatures pass don't matter one whit as you've ceased being ruled by your elected representatives.
It doesn't seem to matter what laws are on the books, your (un-elected) judicial bench makes law in opposition to what is voted for in legislature.