"bushwhack"

Somewhere in the Constitution it states that Congress alone can make laws and that the President is required to faithfully carry them out. Apparently that law doesn’t apply to George W. Bush. President Bush has devised a way to circumvent the law and short-circuit the system by issuing many Executive Order’s that not only contravene the Constitution, but also cover his ass from prosecution. With hundreds of “Signing Statements,” and Executive Order’s, George W. Bush has created “bush Law.” Until he is removed from office, George W. Bush will continue issuing “bush Laws,” much faster than Congress can issue legitimate laws. Perhaps the Democratic “leadership” hasn’t considered the ramifications of this fact. Impeachment is the only legal recourse the American people have to check this lawless president. If Congress doesn’t Impeach George W. Bush, he can tie our legal system and government into knots, and continue to “bushwhack” our country.   .

by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 10:00:54 AM
 

LEGAL OPINION

Posted by Lady Broadoak at 7/25/2007 11:09:00 PM  

Labels: Executive Orders, Intl Emergency Powers Act

by ladybroadoak (38 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 391 comments) on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 6:05:08 AM
 

watching it burn...

the federal register disposition tables, which give the EO's numbers' are conveniently running in lag back to jan07. monitoring of other insidiously tyrannical EO's can be tracked on the WH EO press releases site.

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 10:12:43 AM
 

The Congress will do nothing

Even though the Congress can (and should and MUST) stop this EO from going into effect, they will not.

They will do NOTHING, because they are STUPID IDIOTS and they do not believe that this criminal, vile, immoral, lying and disgusting administration would DARE do any such thing.

Or, they are STUPID ENOUGH to believe that an appeal to courts (yeah, that does a lot of good for the person who is bankrupted by this and the millions who are silenced into submission by the fear of it) will overturn it on constitutional grounds, rather than the well-stacked federal appeals and SCOTUS would actually support this piece of "enabling legislation."

THese are the "enabling laws" that will make the USA a nice and pretty little dictatorship.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 715 comments) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 12:07:19 PM
 

You are right but it is complex

The President has a problem called Iraq. There have been a mixture of initiatives, civilian and military, sometimes with inadequate coordination or communication or experience that have allowed Iraq to descend into chaos. A military solution is proving to be ineffective.

This is phase two, cut the suspected arteries of money that fuel dissent. The money can't come from within because nobody has a job.  Often it has been reported that the opposition are just plain folk needing money.  The President has been monitoring the cash flow of the World. They suspect some sums of money are enhancing the resistance, but these are interpretations without supporting data. A person using the informal Middle East banking system may be sending money home to mom or may be sending money home to his brother, the terrorist.   The President wants to make sure that the only money in Iraq comes from the proper hands.

Iran says they want nuclear energy for domestic use. The President says it's for bombs. Who is right? This EO ensures the President's interpretation is right with respect to the movement of money. We will see what happens.  There may be unintended consequences if he shuts off mom's allowance. 

by Bernard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 57 comments) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 3:27:39 PM
 

LOL, that's funny.

The whole premise of your argument assumes that the president has any credibility. He is a Damn Liar. He is not to be trusted. In FACT, with his atrocious record, one could reasonably assume that if bush said it, it's very likely to be a damn lie.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 9:46:25 PM
 

Desperation

This goes a lot deeper than what meets the eye: Bush is just the front-man for the NeoCon Party, and they're desperate. The dam is cracking and soon will come the great flood, err, the next installment of false-flag terrorism.

We live in interesting times.

by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 10:50:37 PM
 

Congress needs to wake up!!!

Conceivably there is nothing preventing Bush from using this EO against members of Congress if and when they refuse to fund his disasterous war in Iraq. They better wake up on this one!!!

by ksl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 1:22:36 AM
 

a

Oh, well, personally I'm not planning to undermine the security of Iraq or its government, so I guess this doesn't affect me, and frankly I don't see why any sensible person would do so.

by Tim Budds (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 5:58:52 AM
 

My dear Sir,

 the whole secret is that no one wants to undermine  those things because they do not exist. Thus it means ANYONE can be accused of undermining those things  and I doubt if   you ( if accused) would be able to  prove your innocence ( which actually  contradicts to the rule of law anyway). One great Frenchman said once " If I am accused of trying to put Notre Dame on fire I would run away as fast as I can." That would mean that  the worst thing which can happen is to be accused of something  extremely stupid.

Have you, people ever thought  how come this executive order is so ' Iraq- oriented' when we all seem to want to  ' bring the troops home'? If there are  no Americans in Iraq why the executive order? Ergo- the Iraq situation is supposed to last FOREVER!

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 9:24:43 AM
 

"30 days to absolute tyranny" by Elaine

This is Empire and the Americans allowed it to emerge under their very noses! Join the Third World Club of Tyrannical States! Welcome aboard!  

by syed mahdi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 126 comments) on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 12:54:21 PM
 

Why is it almost always the new 2 comment posters

that come in here and spew that right wing nonsense? Well guess what? Mr. new 2 comment poster - Yes, that new unconstitutional fascist executive order worried me terribly for a couple of days - but now I'm too damn pissed to be scared off. And I'm willing to bet that after having some time to mull it over there are many more who feel the same.

So attention any lurking Fascists: if you want to enforce that unAmerican order the way it is none too vaguely implied - you are gonna have to go after about half of your own countrymen. Many of which will be among your friends, your neighbors, and your relatives. For once too, you will have "skin in the game" and there would be many other negative consequences as well. Such as the econmoy tanking. Are you so sure that you're gonna be able to live with all that on your conscience?

So this time you might want to think about what I've said/you might want to think about this before you go off blindly supporting something that will be a catastrophe. It would destroy our country. And ya know, Destroying our country just may have some negative impact on YOU.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 7:01:08 PM
 

Executiuve Order for dictator Tyranny for Bush

The Timeline for the Congress to rescind this ORDER ENDS IN AUGUST WHEN THEY WILL BE ON THE ANNUAL AUGUST VACATION. Reid and Pelosi must cancel this adjournment to rescind this order.

by Swami Bogananda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 2:40:10 PM
 

more info 'bout it

Although the order is limited to those who undermine the stabilization of the government of Iraq, there is a lot that could be interpreted as undermining - jaywalking, littering, and (whoa), dissent! It is also not at the sole discretion of the Sec'ty of Treasury, but also Defense and State, neither of whom would be inclined toward liberal ideas.

It is imperative we call our congresspeople....

by James at IRB (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 12:08:12 PM
 

No, this is different

This new executive order gives the President the power to seize every thing if he THINKS that someone MIGHT commit an act of violence that would threaten stability.

 Furthermore: "Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited." Would that apply to Congressional efforts to nullify this order?

by Ellen Theisen (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 9:06:00 AM
 

What does "An act or acts of violence" mean?

Ah, the studied ambiguity of the English language.

Common sense would indicate that "An act or acts of violence" should mean "one or more acts of violence",  but it's completely unnecessary to explicitly outlaw two or more of something when only one is needed to violate the law.  Why bother specifying "or acts" (the plural)?

I'll tell you why.  It's because this language introduces the following ambiguity:

It could be intrepreted as "an act (of any kind) or acts of violence".  In other words, the domain of the clause "of violence" could be  "act or acts" (common sense interpretation) or the domain of the clause "of violence" might be only the word "acts".

 So what?

Well, it really is potentially a big deal.  Here's why:

The executive order seems to say that the 4th amendment of the constitution is null and void for someone who  has committed, or poses a risk of committing an act of violence that has the purpose or effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

Now, re-read that without the words "of violence" 

The 4th amendment of the constitution is null and void for someone who  has committed, or poses a risk of committing an act that has the purpose or effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

Suddenly, this interpretation could apply to any act, violent or otherwise, that opposes what the Secretary of the Treasury believes is necessary to ensure "economic reconstruction" and "political reform" in Iraq. 

For example, suppose a Senator or Congressman advocates the termination of funding for the Iraq war.  That Senator or Congressman might commit some act, like urging others to vote against funding or filibustering funding, for example.  The Senator or Congressman might even, with his or her colleagues, pass a bill (an act) forbiding further expenditures of funds.

These, of course, would not be violent acts, but they would be "acts" nonetheless and the ambiguity of the language of this executive order could be exploited to assert the interpretation that such non-violent acts were also subject to the penalties enumerated in the executive order.

Ridiculous?  Think again.  With a justice department that has shown itself to be perfectly willing to split any hairs necessary to assert their interpretations, who's going to stop them from asserting that the language of the executive order can be applied to non-violent acts (actual or contemplated)?

 Who's going to stop them?

 If a Senator takes the executive order into her attorney and asks-- is it safe for me to introduce legislation outlawing permanent bases in Iraq?  Do you think the attorney will say, "Of course, you're perfectly safe-- this language only applies to acts of violence"?   Or, on the other hand, doesn't it seem more likely that said attorney would reply "It's difficult to say with certainty.  This is a new executive order and there are no precedents or case law, yet, to resolve whether or not this executive order can be applied to non-violent acts."?

If you've ever had any dealings with attorneys, I think you know which response the hypothetical Senator would get.

Now if you were a Senator worth millions of dollars on paper, would you risk opposing the occupation of Iraq with the potential of losing all your assets hanging over you?  

Executive Orders are not just post-it notes that the President dashes off over breakfast.  These are carefully crafted documents.  If there is ambiguity in them, you can bet it's on purpose.

And, if this particular ambiguity was on purpose, then we are facing nothing less that the criminalization of political dissent in this country and the beginning of a dictatorship. 

by Marcus B (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 27 comments) on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 8:51:13 PM
 

Clarification

My previous post is not intended, in any way, to imply that correction of the wording of the executive order would make it acceptable or reasonable.  Under either interpretation, the EO represents a treasonous assault on the U.S. Constitution and an attempt to grab tyrannical power while Congress is in recess.

I merely wanted to point out that the EO is even worse than most posters have heretofore imagined. 

by Marcus B (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 27 comments) on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 9:04:23 PM