Waxman Has Bush Administration in Sights

[cal04]

The lawmaker poised to cause the Bush administration's biggest headaches when Democrats take control of Congress may just be a grocer's son from Watts who's hardly a household name off Capitol Hill.

Rep. Henry Waxman has spent the last six years waging a guerrilla campaign against the White House and its corporate allies, launching searing investigations into everything from military contracts to Medicare prices from his perch on the Government Reform Committee.

In January, Waxman becomes committee chairman - and thus the lead congressional hound of an administration many Democrats feel has blundered badly as it expanded the power of the executive branch.

(snip)
``The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose,'' he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6238724,00.html

[G_Leo_Criley]

1. give 'em hell henry! K & R

"The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose,'' he said."


:kick:

glc

[salin]

2. Follow the signing statements!

Determine whether or not the exec branch is acting on the signing statements, or just - as they claim - inserting a differing opinion, should the issue come before the Court. If instead, these statements have been used to direct how the Exec branch carries out the SIGNED law - and thus is NOT acting in accordance with the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President (you know - the Constitutional process for passing laws) - then go after the admin on each and every case - until the entire public understands that this President, supported by his GOP minions in congress - acted as a KING - disregarded the will of the people and has essentially discarded the Constitution.

My fear is that Bushco will go, but the underlying acts, the underlying ethos, will remain active in the GOP - that the public will cast the bad taste off as not a systematic problem - but a personality problem (as in - the problem was simply bush - with a different republican leader all will be okay). Unless the public gets a broad understanding of the many, many ways this admin and its minions in Congress worked to subvert our entire system of government - and unless the real examples of the subversion are fully known and understood by those with the power to correct the problems (that is - the legislative branch of govt exercising its role for oversight) - the damage will remain, grow worse, and lay waiting to be further subverted in the future. Can our consitutional government survive that?

Follow the signing statements!

Here is a hint, when the story about the scope and scale of the use of singing statements broke in the Boston Globe, several constitutional scholars were interviewed - scholars who study the signing statements - contact them - they will tell you exactly where to look in terms of WHAT all legislation has had an insidious signing statement attached to it. Then put some of the staff on your committee to work to see how the exec branch is carrying out the law... as it was written? or as the signing statement suggests (often ignoring or defying the law written and passed by congress and signed into law by Bush).

There are many, many things to hold Bushco accountable for. But please do not let the signing statements issue get pushed to the side. It has such serious, and long lasting implications to our nation's future.

[G_Leo_Criley]

3. RE: follow the signing statements!

Thank you! We need to address this problem via investigative committee. A president can't be allowed to subvert and ignore the point of legislation crafted by our elected representatives!


Link to Boston Globe article with a listing of some statements, originally uncovered by the Globe's Charlie Savage:

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

Also, here's a site with an archive of all of Bush's signing statements:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2006&Submit=DISPLAY

This link is to 2006, but you can change the year that you're looking for, from 2001 until now, at the top of the page.

Finally, a Findlaw article by John Dean:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html



glc

[salin]

6. thank you for those links

they are now saved for future reference. I hope that each and everyone of the signing statements is reviewed in terms of whether or not the exec branch acted in accordance with the law, or in accordance to the extra-constitutional signing statement (that is - if acted upon instead of the law - then the signing statement activies are extra-constitutional).

[G_Leo_Criley]

17. an example of a signing statement ...

showing how the president completely overrides Congress' original purpose in passing the bill.

This example is taken from the Boston Globe's feature link at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/


Here's the summary of what was in the bill:
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted uncensored and without delay."

and

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.

All of this seems to be related to this bill, signed (with signing statement) on 12/30/05:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65260

We now know that he was serious. This wasn't just a statement. He acted on this and kept scientific research, that was to the benefit of citizens, from being released.

I'd love it if someone with legal expertise could elucidate. I notice that it mentions Pension Guaranty, which is kind of odd but strange things are happening all over.

Anyway -- This is pretty amazing, and these signing statements appear to be a blight on democracy.

glc

[salin]

18. Sadly I don't have the time to devote to this issue

that I wish I had. This issue in particular (of the signing statements) raised so many red flags for me. This is far before business as usual. Initially it came to light with the torture issue - a blip in the news during the holidays when noone was paying attention. I try to follow the news closely - but missed the seriousness (per serious potential Constitutional Crisis) until the Globe article in March.

Oddly enough - I barely do a journal on DU - but I was so disturbed that I found the eloquence to write a post (and stick it to my journal) just when the admin began to run posts on their front page. Mine, on this topic - apparently got posted among the first - and suddenly had so many 'looks' that my journal (to which I barely write - and haven't for months) was among the 'most read' for months. All I can think is that since it was prominent on the front page of DU - that it was picked up by other web sites and linked to - which then accounted for the massive amounts of reads.

I tried to lay out - what you have clearly followed (thank you) and that sadly I do not have the time or resources to do - which is - that the statements in themselves do not mean much if they are not acted upon... doesn't mean much (which was the argument laid out during the Alito nomination - that the idea was it was th exec branch trying to leave a record that if the SC or other fed courts reviewed the law, that attention would be given (ideally, as the argument goes, to the intent of the legislators) to the interpretaton of the exec branch. If it was just a "footnote" for future legal reference - it is a sign of exec branch arogance (that they know better than the legislature - even though they signed the bill into law). If however the signing statement as acted upon in the administration of government (that is, by the department which was charged with administering the law) - such that the signing statement set the parameters for how to execute the law, rather than the law itself (esp if the parameters set by the signing statement was in opposition to the parameters of the law itself) - then it seems that a Constitutional Crisis - is at hand. A direct challenge to the legislative branch and its powers as set forth in the Constitution.

If your example is correct (at it appears to be) it is just one direct example of the Admin branch of govt acting extra-constitutionally. Dead on serious to the future of our system.

I would love to read more - but will be off DU until late next weekend. If you post more in response - please also PM me with the link so I can find the discussion. There are many issues right now that are so serious to our future - and while this is one - it is harder to follow and less 'sexy' and 'outrageous', so in my belief it is underattended - even though it cuts straight to the heart of our Consitutional system - and it won't go away after Bush - if it isn't taken on head on. On this point, please keep in touch - and pass on any information that is related - even if I am not online or currently participating in discussions. Thank you in advance.

on edit: adding link to journal entry to which was referred: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salin/19

[G_Leo_Criley]

20. :-)

Yes -- we will keep in touch on the signing statements issue. I hope that it'll become a real highlight in the coming months!

There are so many things that are so important at this point, but this is one of the most egregious things he's done. So simple too: We elect representatives. They vote on our behalf. He negates what they've done on our behalf. Jeez. What WERE we thinking?

Anyway -- yes -- you stay in touch with DU too.

glc

[G_Leo_Criley]

19. Re: an example of a signing statement ... 2

Answering my own post (uh oh...)

"We now know that he was serious. This wasn't just a statement. He acted on this and kept scientific research, that was to the benefit of citizens, from being released."

I'm referring to the much publicized article in the journal _Nature regarding gov't. scientists at the NOAA who, it appears, are being censored by this administration and are kept from reporting real science about climate change.

---
I'm not able to access the original article, but here's part of a letter from Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D. Maryland to the journal in reply to the article in _Nature. It is evidence of the signing statement's chilling impact on scientific reporting to the American public:

"Correspondence

Nature 440, 408 (23 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/440408a
Scientists must be able to report without censorship

Barbara A. Mikulski1

1. United States Senate, 503 Hart Senate Office Buildings, Washington DC 20510, USA

Sir:

Government scientists must be able to research and report their findings to the public without fear of censorship or intimidation. We need honest results from our science agencies that we can count on. And taxpayers have the right to know the facts.

But in recent weeks, the press has reported allegations that scientists at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are routinely silenced when reporting their findings on climate change ("US scientists fight political meddling" Nature 439, 896–897; 2006). If true, this is unacceptable.

That's why I've called for the Government Accountability Office to review the policies and practices of our federal physical-science agencies to ensure openness in communication of their science results. This includes not only NASA and NOAA, but all the federal science agencies within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, on which I serve as the senior Democrat.

US citizens deserve to know what's happening to their environment from the agencies they rely on to do the research to keep them safe."

---

I hope that Sens. Waxman, Mikulski, and others will be looking closer at these signing statements come January.

glc

[XOKCowboy]

22. I'm also hoping that the No-Bid contracts to Halliburton and KBR

get quick scrutiny. I agree with Randi and others that our money is best spent letting Iraqi's rebuild their own country dammit!

What I wouldn't give to see Cheney wearing cuffs.

[G_Leo_Criley]

23. Haliburton & KBR...

absolutely deserve scrutiny! Lots to do in January for the 110th congress.

I think many here have dreams of Cheney in cuffs... showin' off that orange jumpsuit... :-D

yep. :woohoo:

glc

[conscious evolution]

4. Yes he does

DU's own CorpGovActivist helped put bush in the crosshairs.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CorpGovActivist
Read his journal and see how.

[BlueJac]

5. Just get the MotherF**kers!

[williesgirl]

7. Go Henry - we're all behind you. recommended

[bobbolink]

8. Let's all thank him and his staff. You can be very sure they're getting hate mail!

I just found out that my old, reliable toll-free number isn't working now, so here are two to try:

1 (888) 818 - 6641

1 (877) 851 - 6437


Those are for the Capitol Hill Switchboard... then ask for Waxman's office.

He and his staff deserve to know we appreciate his efforts!

THank you.

[DemReadingDU]

9. NPR interview with Henry Waxman

11/15/06 NPR interview with Henry Waxman
Waxman says his priorities include investigating no-bid contracts for Iraq and the government's management of post-war Iraq.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6493071

[G_Leo_Criley]

24. re: NPR interview with Henry Waxman

Listening to this 11/15/06 interview now. Wow. Go Henry!

"Waxman says his priorities include investigating no-bid contracts for Iraq and the government's management of post-war Iraq."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6493071

Well worth a listen! Thanks DemReadingDU!

glc

[mzmolly]

10. It's going to he an interesting coupla years.

:popcorn:

[mucifer]

11. I predict there will be a Waxman avitar on DU

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. He's awesome. I can't figure out why he isn't better known.

[cool user name]

13. Kicking ... (and screaming)

[Hubert Flottz]

14. The Unitary Congressman will lead us out of this wilderness ASAP

Unitary Democrats Rule the Roost now!

Edit...The Attack Or The Unitary Congress...coming soon to Cspan.

[XOKCowboy]

15. Kicking for the new Congress and for Waxman, Leahy, Boxer, etc...

This is going to be made out to be "Dems out for revenge" rhetoric but I prefer to think that it's about damn time Bush is introduced to oversight.

You go Henry!

[G_Leo_Criley]

16. monsiuer prez meet Oversight...

Nothing vengeful there XOKCowboy.

Oversight is just exactly what's been missing at this tea party!

go henry!!! :patriot:

glc

[bridgit]

21. k&r'd...

:kick:

[mucifer]

25. McCaskill just talked about going after the war profiteerers

on "meet the press".