![]() |
|
|
May 3, 2007 at 06:54:56
Bush's Illegal Use of Signing Statements is Impeachment Reason No. 1 by David Chard |
|
|
Bush's Illegal Use of Signing Statements is Impeachment Reason No. 1 In a Pulitzer Prize-winning article in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage courageously published details of Bush's outrageous "signing statements" added to new legislation. As you can see from the examples quoted from Savage's story(Boston Globe, April 30, 2007) below, the intention of each statement is to allow an "executive loophole" whereby "the W" can essentially ignore the effect of the legislation. In other words, Bush has been assuming the powers of a dictator, ruling by decree, under our noses. This is quoted directly from Savage's story: "Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them: March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers. Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations. Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks. Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay." Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch. Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing. Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress. Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800. Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature." Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community. Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.) Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders. Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders. Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence. Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries. Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations. Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department." Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education." IS THERE STILL ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND ABOUT THE NEED TO IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH?
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Write to your Congressional Representatives and Speak Out Against Signing Statements
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://www.deadhorses.org
"I am a patriot in the tradition or Mark Twain who stated that 'a patriot is one who supports his country 100% of the time...and the government when it deserves it."
As such I am passionate about protecting the rights of US citizens under (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Signing statements
After this administration is finished screwing the country we'd better think long and hard about changeing some of the privileges and rights of the Exectutive Branch so this never happens again. Concider this: a two party presidency where each participant has equal powers in order to apply real checks and balances. I really don't think this would cause gridlock or any other problems simply because they would have to work together to keep their jobs. No one man or woman should hold such awesome powers and have the right to interpert our Constitution for political agendas. Also, if we are to keep the power of the executives signing statements, these statements should be restricted to points of law. After all, the Congress wrote and approved the law in the first place with full understanding of the new legislations Constitutional standing. by RM Merrill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 9:37:54 AM
|
|
'Sold' Our Souls...
...To The Company Store. 'Freedom' now is just another word for 'commodity.' Sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 11:19:45 AM
|
|
Abuse of power
I think Prez Bush ( the man, not the office ) has a lot of gall trying to and almost succeeding to give himself this unlimited power. If he was true to the nature of the Office, he would use this power to do something about the unarmed robbery and rape of the American publc by the oil companies ( don't blame the middle east, it's plain old American greed, which started eroding our character many years ago, and will end up taking us down the same road as Rome in it's glory days ). It's too bad the word Statesman has left the political arena.... by TLee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 12:32:20 PM
|
|
If nobody knew the party of the Prez, then we'd all agree
Ignoring the laws passed by the representatives of the people (regardless of whether the elections for those representatives were even fair, which is unknowable at the VERY best, given the secret vote counting with electronic machines) is most certainly a sign of unchecked powers/dictatorial powers. Thomas Jefferson would not approve, to say the least! by Paul Lehto (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 3:17:32 PM
|
|
signing statements
I'd say he has nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the American people. Let's get behind KUCINICH and the IMPEACHMENT resolution! This president needs to spend some time in AbuGraib, as a terrorist suspect. by Pat Herrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 169 comments) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 3:36:08 PM
|
|
Reply: Bush on the Constitution...
..."it's just a goddamned piece of paper." http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 3:58:48 PM
|
|
what next
It is sad to see the Govt declare war with the patriot act and other laws against the freedom of Americans ... what's next? by Ben_Retro (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 5:40:24 PM
|
|
Reply: Martial Law
It ain't pretty. If Bush hadn't broken all his soldiers, we'd be under 'martial law.' It could still happen. He is a psycho. by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 5:47:11 PM
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |