Bush Issues First Signing Statement Since '06 Election

[tekisui]

WASHINGTON - President Bush this month issued his first signing statement since the Democratic takeover of Congress, reserving the right to bypass 11 provisions in a military appropriations bill under his executive powers.

In the statement, which the White House filed in the Federal Register on Nov. 13 but which initially attracted little attention, Bush challenged several requirements to provide information to Congress.

For example, one law Bush targeted requires him to give oversight committees notice before transferring US military equipment to United Nations peacekeepers.

Bush also challenged a new law that limits his ability to transfer funds lawmakers approved for one purpose to start a different program, as well as a law requiring him to keep in place an existing command structure for the Navy's Pacific fleet.

"The Act contains certain provisions identical to those found in prior bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities," Bush's statement says.

"To avoid such potential infirmities, I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions."

more at link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/01/signing_statement_is_presidents_first_since_2006/

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[RC]

2. And george walker bu$h is still in office because???

Isn't his cell ready yet?

[Joanne98]

3. He wants mo money!

[tekisui]

4. Could the "money transfer" part of the signing statement

by used to move funds for an Iranian attack, if Congress wouldn't fund it?

[KingFlorez]

7. I think it could

I think that's one of the reasons he put in there.

[leftofthedial]

5. Impeach the treasonous little shit already

he's the idiot son of an asshole

he and his cronies are blatantly using the office of President to lie, steal, torture, murder and worse. they don't even try to pretend otherwise anymore.

If the "democrats" can't find it in themselves to start impeachment proceedings, they should just remove impeachment from the Constitution and declare this a monarchy.

[GCP]

6. Why don't we just face it - he thinks he's King

[niyad]

8. his FIRST since january? why don't I believe that? any proof?

[C_U_L8R]

9. tell him no

congress has to smack this chimp down

no more bypassing the Constitution
and certainly no more money

[snappyturtle]

10. The arrogance is over-whelming. Surely glad we kept the powder dry. K&R nt

[originalpckelly]

11. This is, by the way, not Bush's statement by any means...

it is a statement written by one or more pyucky little shitheads at the DOJ or in the White Counsel's Office. Bush is far to fucking stupid to write any legal document.

[Senator]

12. 11 Brand New Impeachable Offenses

Cowardly slipped under the Holiday news blackout.

Well DC Dems, this time it's right in your flaccid faces.

Anybody home?

---

[Thothmes]

13. If signing statements were an impeachable offense

Presidents since Monroe would be impeached. Carter, Reagen, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all have issued signing statements. Bush II holds the record for the most.

[tekisui]

15. They have never been challenged Constitutionally.

They could be Unconstitutional, if a Congress challenged them.

Chimpy has more than all previous Presidents combined.

[Thothmes]

16. Challenged

Signing statements are mere words which, however outrageous may not have constitutional implications. If they are acted on, then I think a constitutional issue may exist if Congress or the judiciary cared to pursue the issue. How many presidents have acted on their signing statements? I do not recall a time when Congress or the Judiciary initiate action against a president because he acted on one of his signing statements. This presumes that a President has acted on a signing statement.

[tekisui]

17. Chimpy has acted on his.

I think it is time to test the legality of them.

[Senator]

18. It is "ruling" via this fig leaf that is impeachable...

...and quite unique to this regime. These are not statements of intent not to enforce a provision until it passes court muster.

They have "exempted" themselves from anti-torture law in this way. Case closed on unlawful, war criminal, and impeachable. And with these 11 -- if you note the specifics -- they declare their intent to simply "negate" the laws outright. They are all part of their larger claim of monarchical, "Unitary" power.

They are literally claiming that no act of Congress, or the ruling of any court, can limit their actions. (And they have acted without limit with Geneva violations and illegal spying.)

Yes, it's all just "words on a page," but the arrogation of actionable power -- even without "proven" action -- is the offense that can only be challenged, when warranted, via impeachment. Past signing statements have not arrogated power in this way.

--

[Toots]

14. "that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities,"

Construed by whom? On a maybe he will overturn the will of the people..I don't think that is in the Constitution...I am fairly certain though if push comes to shove the Democrats will somehow change the Constitution so Bush* can do as he pleases.Oh and make their changes retroactive... It is their pattern to date anyway..