Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Executive power under W

Executive power under W
Thread Tools
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 03:07 PM
 
This is a good read and the npr podcast interview with the guy is informative too. Read before you post!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5392733

Arlen Specter will be holding hearings on these "presidential signing statements" soon. This is yet more evidence that Bush's desire to expand executive power under the nose of the public remains a danger to the power of congress and the people to keep him under control.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 03:16 PM
 
Why are you questioning the Chief Executive's authority in a time of war? Don't you know we've always been at war with Terrorism, and we all need to defer to the wisdom of the Maximum Leader in this time of crisis?

To not do so is Unamerican. Why do you hate America so much, UNTeMac?

(inserted because some people don't get it....)
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 03:19 PM
 
What is a Unamerican? Is it anything like a Unabomber?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork.
Why are you questioning the Chief Executive's authority in a time of war? Don't you know we've always been at war with Terrorism, and we all need to defer to the wisdom of the Maximum Leader in this time of crisis?

To not do so is Unamerican. Why do you hate America so much, UNTeMac?

(inserted because some people don't get it....)
That's actually a pretty good joke on what is actually said about people who are bringing this to light.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by UNTeMac
That's actually a pretty good joke on what is actually said about people who are bringing this to light.
Glad you got the joke. There's a "Decider" joke in there somewhere, too!

Seriously, though, this does concern me. I don't think that the Executive Branch was intended to have quite this much power. It's essentially a line-item veto on any issue the President can connect with his role as commander-in-chief, no matter how spurious the justification is. Congress and the Courts need to weigh in on exactly how much latitude the President has in making these statements. He can't just ignore the Congress whenever he disagrees with them!
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 03:45 PM
 
The Supreme court, in it's legislating from the bench approach is far more horrid. same goes for all the courts "MAKING LAWS" instead of enforcing them.
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
The Supreme court, in it's legislating from the bench approach is far more horrid. same goes for all the courts "MAKING LAWS" instead of enforcing them.
Nice attempt at distraction but we are talking about the president here. Your opinions about courts are for another thread. The point is, the president is using these "signing statements" to interpret the law for himself which is not his job according to the U.S. Constitution.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2006, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by UNTeMac
The point is, the president is using these "signing statements" to interpret the law for himself which is not his job according to the U.S. Constitution.
"I'm interpretatin'! This stick figger here is Saddam, and this figger here is a nooclear bomb. Watch this... PEW! PEW! PEW! KAPOW!"
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 05:49 AM
 
there's a video here about it:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/10.html#a8240
Well, first of all this President's theory of his power I think is now so extreme that it's unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that. Not just the signing statements and the infamous torture memo-that Alberto Gonzales signed. It was stated that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law and this is consistent across the board with this President. Frankly, I'm not too sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws. I've never seen a President who is so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin.
also talks about GW's penchant for hiring people who break the law.
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 10:26 AM
 
Hmm. No W cheerleaders in here? Must be their day off.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by xi_hyperon
Hmm. No W cheerleaders in here? Must be their day off.
Y3A tried to derail the thread. I'm waiting for abe, Kevin, and Doofy.

I'm sure abe will say something like, "The President has to break the law in order to protect its citizens. You people just don't get it."
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Y3A tried to derail the thread. I'm waiting for abe, Kevin, and Doofy.

I'm sure abe will say something like, "The President has to break the law in order to protect its citizens. You people just don't get it."
Yeah, he probably will. But I am one of those people who don't want the Preisdent to break the law to "protect me". I would rather our nation adhere to our Constitutional principles and take a chance on the President not catching every law-breaker in our midst. But that's just me.

Of course, if the American people willingly elected a President known to ignore and/or violate the Constitution it makes you wonder if the country is worth fighting to save in the first place. I have my doubts.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 02:14 PM
 
This immense expansion of executive power under W. will be all the sweeter if Hill and Bill become co-presidents next.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 03:00 PM
 
Why not quote relevant portions of the articles, or link to a single-page version?

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president. ... George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie
Why not quote relevant portions of the articles, or link to a single-page version?
Because I thought the entire article was worth a read and I knew you'd be here to do it for me eventually.

The podcast is a good way to get the author's point and more interesting I think.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Y3A tried to derail the thread. I'm waiting for abe, Kevin, and Doofy.

I'm sure abe will say something like, "The President has to break the law in order to protect its citizens. You people just don't get it."
Oh?

==========================================
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...51#post2976251

There is no easy right or wrong here. It's a matter of probabilities and levels of risk.

I say the probability of the US government becoming the Big Brother of your nightmares is less than you seem to. And I see the risk as being less that the risk of an assault by terrorists or others who would IMPOSE Islam on our secular government.

What your fear and my fear have in common is that both would be virtually impossible to reverse.

So, in the choice of BIG BROTHER vs BIG IMAM I'd take my chances with Big Brother because I really don't believe the government wants to become BIG BROTHER but we are absolutely certain that Muslims want to make Islam the world's dominant, if not it's ONLY religion.

IF there were a Big Brother it would happen over my dead body. But it would also be one step better than Big Imam.

So...Big Brother or Big Imam.

Choose.
__________________
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...66#post2976266

If you guys were able to think beyond just an emotional level you'd realize this is what COULD happen without the President's LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED actions:

1. We'd get victimized once. Then twice. Then a third time.

2. Just as support for our actions in Iraq has dipped with time and an increase in US fatalities, so would the US public's support for any of the type of current actions increase.

3. With a wave of popular support, the Administration would enact the eavesdropping and data mining measures you are now protesting.

4. The President's opponents and America's bashers would complain about why the Government waited so long to take these actions instead of allowing the enemies of freedom to attack us three times AFTER we already KNEW they wanted to do so!

This measure of eavesdropping and data mining is saving lives. American lives.

Fuzzies.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2006, 11:52 PM
 
And why isn't Tony Snow out 'in front' on this issue?
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2006, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by abe
Oh?
You just stated in context exactly what I said you would.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2006, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
You just stated in context exactly what I said you would.
Never let it be said I refused to give the "devil" his due.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,