Bush claims the authority to disobey laws

[Mugg Mann]

Well, now we know why he hasn't vetoed a single bill since assuming the presidency...

Credit the Boston Globe for a very illuminating yet rather frightening peek behind the curtain (at least for those of us who believe that the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government is one of the bedrocks of our democracy). I've copied the first couple of paragraphs, but one should really take the time to read the entire article.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- 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.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.


Here's the full story;

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

Ask yourself the following question honestly; if you are comfortable with the president claiming this sort of power, are you equally comfortable with someone else you don't agree with assuming the presidency and making the same power grab?

 

[bicker]

I suppose that answers the question about why there are so many folks so readily willing to ignore rules and guidelines at WDW. If our President won't lead us to behave correctly, why should anyone behave correctly?

I'm not sure, but isn't the breakdown of integrity how most of the great civilizations of the past collapsed?

 

[Teejay32]

I read through page 2, then it went to register-to-view, and I can't stand the Globe anyway. I got this much though: we've been messing around with Columbia a long time and have all kinds of things to combat there: drugs, terrorism, corruption, etc. So Congress sends a few troops and contractors there, I guess to teach the good side how to wage war, and also forbids them to engage in combat, and complains that the executive branch might have its own ideas about what the troops can or cannot do?

Are you sure the power grab is on the executive side?

 

[TCPluto]

If our President won't lead us to behave correctly, why should anyone behave correctly?

I'm not sure, but isn't the breakdown of integrity how most of the great civilizations of the past collapsed?

I absolutely agree. That's why I choose to follow after the actions of Bill Clinton. Now there was a man who could lead by example. Ted Kennedy, there's another stalwart of always doing the right thing.

 

[bicker]

Pluto: Are you saying that we are destined to have one disrespectable leader after another?

How about Joe Biden? How about John McCain?

 

[What the Heck]

Pluto: Are you saying that we are destined to have one disrespectable leader after another?

How about Joe Biden? How about John McCain?

I'm not sure either could make it out of the primaries, although from what I know of them I could support either.

 

[What the Heck]

Ask yourself the following question honestly; if you are comfortable with the president claiming this sort of power, are you equally comfortable with someone else you don't agree with assuming the presidency and making the same power grab?

Isn't this the exact same question that was asked in the late 90's and the answer from the other side was that it was ok? In fact, were there not thousands saying that it was a meaningless question brought on by a desperate "right wing conspiracy" to overthrow a president? Is not a presidential candidate from that same side still saying that? Were there not members of congress from the other side getting up denouncing this right wing conspiracy because they asked the same question you are asking?

I do not have enough facts to come with a simple answer to your question for this president, although I suspect there just may be some truth to it. Mr. Bush does tend to show some of the worse tendancies of Andrew Jackson ("the court has made their decision, let them enforce it"). However an article by the Boston Globe about this current President, I believe I would want a few more facts before calling for impeachment.

 

[bicker]

Isn't this the exact same question that was asked in the late 90's and the answer from the other side was that it was ok?

It's a little different. Back then, the whole thing was a matter of folks sticking their nose into the President's personal life, and the the downstream operations steming from that. This time young men are dying in a foreign war.

 

[What the Heck]

It's a little different. Back then, the whole thing was a matter of folks sticking their nose into the President's personal life, and the the downstream operations steming from that. This time young men are dying in a foreign war.

I disagree. The young men dying in a foreign war was not a part of the op. This makes for a nice smokescreen, but I understand that President Clinton also sent our forces into foreign lands to die as well.

And it does sound better for the President when it is looked at as "folks sticking their nose into the President's personal life" instead of perjury. Does that mean that if I am under oath I just have to say that it's none of their business and I don't have to answer? Or claim that I lied because they were sticking their nose into my personal life?

 

[bicker]

The young men dying in a foreign war was not a part of the op.

True, but it is a result of the lies, and far more egrigious a result than what the last President's indiscretions produced.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What is troublesome is that whenever the President is accused of doing something that is, shall we say, of "questionable legality", the Right brings up the fact that Clinton lied under oath, as if that gives President Bush carte blanche to do whatever he pleases. Talk about embracing the lowest common denominator...
If some of you were truly principled, you would hold every President accountable for his actions, but I know that in the political climate of 2006, partisanship runs rampant, and some of you would rather defend President Bush's questionable behavior regarding the Constitution and throw your principles to the wayside.
I'm totally convinced that if tomorrow, President Bush called a press conference and announced that in order to to better fight the war on terror, he was going to do away with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and started wearing a crown and carrying a scepter, a large majority of you Bush apologists would knee down and kiss his robes.

 

[What the Heck]

True, but it is a result of the lies, and far more egrigious a result than what the last President's indiscretions produced.

So that excuses him? That excuses his attempt to shrug it off by portraying 1/2 of the American public as a "vast Right Wing conspiracy"?

A case could be made that because of his past indiscretions he wasn't able to concentrate on the true job at hand by protecting our shores. A case could be made that part of the results of his lies helped lead to 9/11 (because he was so distracted by it).

It is my contention that this question should have received serious consideration in the 90's and should receive serious consideration now. However, the contention in the article isn't exactly what the OP would have us believe. The main contention from what I read is "But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution". Every president has interpreted the Constitution and the powers provided to the president differently. To say this is a crime or "claim(ing) the authority to disobey laws" is ludicrous at best. You are now comparing oranges (Bush) to rotten apples (Clinton) and saying the rotten apples are better.

 

[What the Heck]

What is troublesome is that whenever the President is accused of doing something that is, shall we say, of "questionable legality", the Right brings up the fact that Clinton lied under oath, as if that gives President Bush carte blanche to do whatever he pleases. Talk about embracing the lowest common denominator...
If some of you were truly principled, you would hold every President accountable for his actions, but I know that in the political climate of 2006, partisanship runs rampant, and some of you would rather defend President Bush's questionable behavior regarding the Constitution and throw your principles to the wayside.
I'm totally convinced that if tomorrow, President Bush called a press conference and announced that in order to to better fight the war on terror, he was going to do away with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and started wearing a crown and carrying a scepter, a large majority of you Bush apologists would knee down and kiss his robes.

I was wondering how soon this arguement would come up. Of course the fact that in a previous post I said that "Mr. Bush does tend to show some of the worse tendancies of Andrew Jackson", but hey, if that shows support for the President in your eyes, you really need to share the pharmaceuticals you are using.

 

[PopStar]

Out with the torches!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I was wondering how soon this arguement would come up. Of course the fact that in a previous post I said that "Mr. Bush does tend to show some of the worse tendancies of Andrew Jackson", but hey, if that shows support for the President in your eyes, you really need to share the pharmaceuticals you are using.

I read your post and that's what sparked mine. It's also why I said "a majority"...not all. There are many conservatives on these boards, WTH...not every post is intended for you and you alone.

 

[bicker]

Hehe... It is really quite surprising to see anyone, in this day and age, still trying to equate lying about a bj with lying that led to thousands of American deaths. Very sad grasping as straws to try to avoid addressing what this President has done.

Yes, Clinton was a bad boy. He got caught with his zipper down. Now let's talk about something really important, like why my neighbor had to bury her son in the interest of prosecuting the policy of our illustrious "energy President". (It sure has served us well to have two people running this country who know so much about energy, hasn't it?)

 

[What the Heck]

I read your post and that's what sparked mine. It's also why I said "a majority"...not all. There are many conservatives on these boards, WTH...not every post is intended for you and you alone.

Thank you. It was a little confusing since I am the only conservative who is posting on this thread so far.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Thank you. It was a little confusing since I am the only conservative who is posting on this thread so far.

I happened to be looking in TCPluto's direction...surprised you didn't notice...

 

[bicker]

I think a lot of folks here on the DIS would confirm that I'm a pretty staunch fiscal conservative. Is anyone else old enough to remember when the GOP was actually the party of responsible governing, instead of the home of the Christian Jihad?

 

[Alicnwondrln]

I suppose that answers the question about why there are so many folks so readily willing to ignore rules and guidelines at WDW. If our President won't lead us to behave correctly, why should anyone behave correctly?

I'm not sure, but isn't the breakdown of integrity how most of the great civilizations of the past collapsed?

what he said