ABA investigates Bush for exceeding constitutional authority

Mugg Mann

"Just the facts, ma'am"
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
2,504
Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges

WASHINGTON -- The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world's largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political parties.

They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.

Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and ``whistle-blower" protections for federal employees.

The challenges also have included safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.

Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.

The ABA's president, Michael Greco, said in an interview that he proposed the task force because he believes the scope and aggressiveness of Bush's signing statements may raise serious constitutional concerns. He said the ABA, which has more than 400,000 members, has a duty to speak out about such legal issues to the public, the courts, and Congress.

``The American Bar Association feels a very serious obligation to ensure that when there are legal issues that affect the American people, the ABA adopts a policy regarding such issues and then speaks out about it," Greco said. ``In this instance, the president's practice of attaching signing statements to laws squarely presents a constitutional issue about the separation of powers among the three branches."

The signing statements task force, which was recruited by Greco, a longtime Boston lawyer who served on former Governor William F. Weld's Judicial Nominating Council, includes several Republicans. Among them are Mickey Edwards , a former Oklahoma representative from 1977 to 1993, and Bruce Fein , a Justice Department official under President Reagan.

In interviews, several of the panel members said they were going into the project with an open mind, but they expressed concerns about Bush's actions.

``I think one of the most critical issues in the country right now is the extent to which the White House has tried to expand its powers and basically tried to cut the legislative branch out of its own constitutionally equal role, and the signing statements are a particularly egregious example of that," Edwards said. ``I've been doing a lot of speaking and writing about this, and when the ABA said they were looking to take a position on signing statements, I said that's serious because those people carry a lot of weight."Continued...

William Sessions , a retired federal judge who was the director of the FBI under both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush , said he agreed to participate because he believed that the signing statements raise a ``serious problem" for the American constitutional system.
``I think it's very important for the people of the United States to have trust and reliance that the president is not going around the law," Sessions said. ``The importance of it speaks for itself."

Full story at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/
 
Mugg Mann said:
Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges

WASHINGTON -- The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world's largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political parties.

They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.

Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and ``whistle-blower" protections for federal employees.

The challenges also have included safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.

Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.

The ABA's president, Michael Greco, said in an interview that he proposed the task force because he believes the scope and aggressiveness of Bush's signing statements may raise serious constitutional concerns. He said the ABA, which has more than 400,000 members, has a duty to speak out about such legal issues to the public, the courts, and Congress.

``The American Bar Association feels a very serious obligation to ensure that when there are legal issues that affect the American people, the ABA adopts a policy regarding such issues and then speaks out about it," Greco said. ``In this instance, the president's practice of attaching signing statements to laws squarely presents a constitutional issue about the separation of powers among the three branches."

The signing statements task force, which was recruited by Greco, a longtime Boston lawyer who served on former Governor William F. Weld's Judicial Nominating Council, includes several Republicans. Among them are Mickey Edwards , a former Oklahoma representative from 1977 to 1993, and Bruce Fein , a Justice Department official under President Reagan.

In interviews, several of the panel members said they were going into the project with an open mind, but they expressed concerns about Bush's actions.

``I think one of the most critical issues in the country right now is the extent to which the White House has tried to expand its powers and basically tried to cut the legislative branch out of its own constitutionally equal role, and the signing statements are a particularly egregious example of that," Edwards said. ``I've been doing a lot of speaking and writing about this, and when the ABA said they were looking to take a position on signing statements, I said that's serious because those people carry a lot of weight."Continued...

William Sessions , a retired federal judge who was the director of the FBI under both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush , said he agreed to participate because he believed that the signing statements raise a ``serious problem" for the American constitutional system.
``I think it's very important for the people of the United States to have trust and reliance that the president is not going around the law," Sessions said. ``The importance of it speaks for itself."

Full story at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/

:stir:
 
What took the ABA so long? This should have been done a long time ago.
 
mom2rb said:
What took the ABA so long? This should have been done a long time ago.
That's exactly what I was thinking, mom2rb. :confused3
 

Mugg Mann said:
Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.

That's a pretty bold statement. Got any numbers to back that up? I predict this will become a Democratic talking point if not already.

If signing statements are legal, what's the big deal? Have Congress get rid of the ability if they believe it's being abused.

Another thing that bothers me is that 750 laws have been passed in the last 5 years. That's 2.43 laws per day for every day of the year for 5 years. I find that hard to believe because we all know how long Congress takes to create a bill for passage.
 
Charade said:
That's a pretty bold statement. Got any numbers to back that up? I predict this will become a Democratic talking point if not already.

If signing statements are legal, what's the big deal? Have Congress get rid of the ability if they believe it's being abused.

Another thing that bothers me is that 750 laws have been passed in the last 5 years. That's 2.43 laws per day for every day of the year for 5 years. I find that hard to believe because we all know how long Congress takes to create a bill for passage.

The entire post is a direct quote from the article published today. Here's the original article from over a month ago when this was first revealed;

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

If you click on the appropiate link within the article, you'll find the graphic showing how many times each President has issued a signing statement.
 
I like that it's being investigated too, especially in this environment where people are as skeptical of Congress as in the administration. I think it's true that Bush has more signing statements out than previous Presidents, but many have to do with defense and military affairs. We're at war now - although Congress hasn't actually said so, in which case we're not. (?) By all means let's straighten that out.
 
Drama by the "unbiased" ABA. :rolleyes: Oh boy.

What did the ABA think about all Clinton's pardons when he left office?? Now there was abuse of power -- whether he had the right or not -- it still was abuse of power.
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
What did the ABA think about all Clinton's pardons when he left office?? Now there was abuse of power -- whether he had the right or not -- it still was abuse of power.

Here's a list of the Presedential pardons from greatest to least....I'm not sure why this is a "Clinton" thing?

Franklin D. Roosevelt 3687
Woodrow Wilson 2480
Harry S. Truman 2044
Calvin Coolidge 1545
Herbert Hoover 1385
Ulysses S. Grant 1332
Lyndon B. Johnson 1187
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1157
Grover Cleveland 1107
Theodore Roosevelt 981
Richard Nixon 926
William McKinley 918
Rutherford B. Hayes 893
Warren G. Harding 800
William H. Taft 758
Andrew Johnson 654
Benjamin Harrison 613
John F. Kennedy 575
Jimmy Carter 566
Bill Clinton 456
James Monroe 419
Gerald Ford 409
Ronald Reagan 406
Andrew Jackson 386
Abraham Lincoln 343
Chester Arthur 337
James K. Polk 268
John Tyler 209
James Madison 196
John Quincy Adams 183
Millard Fillmore 170
Martin Van Buren 168
James Buchanan 150
Franklin Pierce 142
Thomas Jefferson 119
George Bush 77
Zachary Taylor 38
John Adams 21
George Washington 16
James Garfield 0
William H Harrison 0

:wave:

Beca
 
Beca said:
Here's a list of the Presedential pardons from greatest to least....I'm not sure why this is a "Clinton" thing?

Franklin D. Roosevelt 3687
Woodrow Wilson 2480
Harry S. Truman 2044
Calvin Coolidge 1545
Herbert Hoover 1385
Ulysses S. Grant 1332
Lyndon B. Johnson 1187
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1157
Grover Cleveland 1107
Theodore Roosevelt 981
Richard Nixon 926
William McKinley 918
Rutherford B. Hayes 893
Warren G. Harding 800
William H. Taft 758
Andrew Johnson 654
Benjamin Harrison 613
John F. Kennedy 575
Jimmy Carter 566
Bill Clinton 456
James Monroe 419
Gerald Ford 409
Ronald Reagan 406
Andrew Jackson 386
Abraham Lincoln 343
Chester Arthur 337
James K. Polk 268
John Tyler 209
James Madison 196
John Quincy Adams 183
Millard Fillmore 170
Martin Van Buren 168
James Buchanan 150
Franklin Pierce 142
Thomas Jefferson 119
George Bush 77
Zachary Taylor 38
John Adams 21
George Washington 16
James Garfield 0
William H Harrison 0

:wave:

Beca

I was not talking about the number of pardons at all. I was referring to some of the people he pardoned, like Marc Rich.
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
I was not talking about the number of pardons at all. I was referring to some of the people he pardoned, like Marc Rich.

You know, maybe it is because I am too young to even remember the Marc Rich scandal, but a look now at the resources available make it so confusing to determine what is information, and what is mis-information regarding the facts surrounding that case.

A former prosecutor of Marc Rich has stated that the laws would be even more strict regarding the prosecution of Mr Rich and Mr Green. And yet, I have read other articles stating that the RICO statutes have been changed, and neither individual would be eligible for criminal prosecution under the current perameters of the RICO statutes...only civil prosecution. It is my understanding that, due to these interpretations, then President Clinton placed certain perameters on his pardon of Mr Rich....one being that, in this particular case there would be no statute of limitations regarding civil prosecution of Mr Rich....bringing his jeopardy in line with current interpretations of RICO.

I am not a lawyer, and could easily be mis-interpreting what was a very complicated case which occurred during a time when I was still more concerned about whether or not I would get a good date to a spring formal, than with affairs of state. But, I am pretty good at interpreting such things now, and I have not been able to make heads or tails out of this one any of the times I have looked into it.

Maybe Clinton had the best of intentions, maybe it was just another pardon for a wealthy contributor, and maybe it was a way of "sticking it" those across the aisle. But, I remember in earlier research I came across an article where a reporter asked one of the original prosecutors of Mr Rich if the power of presidential pardon should be scaled back, and she replied, "Absolutely not." Presidents have been giving 11th hour pardons to whomever they please for 200 years. I don't see this as any different. I cannot say I would be "thrilled" if a president pardoned Leigh or Skilling....but, I would not be too surprised to see it happen.

Anyway, here's an interesting article written by a former Clinton advisor who tries to explain, in his views, what Clinton was thinking. It is an interesting read.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20010202.html

:wave:

Beca
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
Drama by the "unbiased" ABA. :rolleyes: Oh boy.

What did the ABA think about all Clinton's pardons when he left office?? Now there was abuse of power -- whether he had the right or not -- it still was abuse of power.

Your attempt at misdirection on this topic is noted, Joe.

Allow me to repeat something that you apparently missed from the article;

William Sessions , a retired federal judge who was the director of the FBI under both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush , said he agreed to participate because he believed that the signing statements raise a ``serious problem" for the American constitutional system.
``I think it's very important for the people of the United States to have trust and reliance that the president is not going around the law," Sessions said. ``The importance of it speaks for itself."

I look forward to your explanation of how a political appointee with enough gravitas to direct the FBI under the Reagan adminstration and the first Bush administration would voluntarily and apparently eagerly join an investigation by the "unbiased ABA :rolleyes: ".

Of course, there's a simpler explanation; that even traditional hard-core conservatives can no longer tolerate the abuse of constitutional power that this presidency is trying to wield. But you (or Charade, for that matter) can't accept that explanation, can you?

You're going to have to spin this one really, really, really hard, Joe.
 
Mugg Mann said:
Your attempt at misdirection on this topic is noted, Joe.

Allow me to repeat something that you apparently missed from the article;

William Sessions , a retired federal judge who was the director of the FBI under both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush , said he agreed to participate because he believed that the signing statements raise a ``serious problem" for the American constitutional system.
``I think it's very important for the people of the United States to have trust and reliance that the president is not going around the law," Sessions said. ``The importance of it speaks for itself."

I look forward to your explanation of how a political appointee with enough gravitas to direct the FBI under the Reagan adminstration and the first Bush administration would voluntarily and apparently eagerly join an investigation by the "unbiased ABA :rolleyes: ".

Of course, there's a simpler explanation; that even traditional hard-core conservatives can no longer tolerate the abuse of constitutional power that this presidency is trying to wield. But you (or Charade, for that matter) can't accept that explanation, can you?

You're going to have to spin this one really, really, really hard, Joe.

"....the abuse of constitutional power that this presidency is trying to wield."

Suddenly it's fact for you?? Not going to wait for the "investigation."

If the ABA is so concerned, why doesn't it work with the President instead of patting itself on the back with press releases that already point to their conclusion before the investigation even starts. Sounds like they are presuming guilt. Nice job. :sad2:
 
If President Bush is innocent, I'm sure that nothing will come of this. I don't see why a few people feel so threatened. (Actually, I do.)
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
"....the abuse of constitutional power that this presidency is trying to wield."

Suddenly it's fact for you?? Not going to wait for the "investigation."

If the ABA is so concerned, why doesn't it work with the President instead of patting itself on the back with press releases that already point to their conclusion before the investigation even starts. Sounds like they are presuming guilt. Nice job. :sad2:

Joe- Based on your responses, I believe that you haven't read both articles to completion. Why don't you prove me wrong and tell me how the information contained in them came to light?
 
I'm bumping this to allow Joe to tell us how the information revealed in both articles was uncovered.

And I'm still very curious to get your take on why you think a man who was appointed to head the FBI by both the Reagan and first Bush adminstrations is troubled enough by these allegations to enthusiastically and voluntarily join an investigative panel convened by a (in your words) "biased ABA". You skipped over that one the first time, Joe....
 
Mugg Mann said:
I'm bumping this to allow Joe to tell us how the information revealed in both articles was uncovered.

And I'm still very curious to get your take on why you think a man who was appointed to head the FBI by both the Reagan and first Bush adminstrations is troubled enough by these allegations to enthusiastically and voluntarily join an investigative panel convened by a (in your words) "biased ABA". You skipped over that one the first time, Joe....

Read it all.

Some members said they would keep an open mind.

Apparently some will NOT. That is bias or prejudging.

If those who are "troubled" will keep an open mind, then good. (It didn't sound like YOU were keeping an open mind.)
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
Read it all.

Some members said they would keep an open mind.

Apparently some will NOT. That is bias or prejudging.

If those who are "troubled" will keep an open mind, then good. (It didn't sound like YOU were keeping an open mind.)

I see you bypassed both questions.....again.

Par for the course, Joe.
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
Drama by the "unbiased" ABA. :rolleyes: Oh boy.

What did the ABA think about all Clinton's pardons when he left office?? Now there was abuse of power -- whether he had the right or not -- it still was abuse of power.

Aren't you showing bias in this statement?
 
Unfortunately this task is being undertaken by the ABA. No, they are not unbiased. They are lawyers - YUCK. The legal system, again, unfortunately, has been perverted making most associations with lawyers tainted. Whether they mean well or not this looks like a case where the group will work from the conclusion backwards to make all pieces fit. Just look at some of the lines bolded by the OP. Clearly a conclusion has been reached.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom