Consumer Homes.

Question:

Bush challenges hundreds of laws By Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) 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. Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts. Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ‘’signing statements" — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed. ”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power. The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ”to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military. On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief. Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ”black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned. Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ”lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration’s lawyers. Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ‘’security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements. The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ‘’shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself. Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees. In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts. After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress. Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports. It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports. When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ”the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore. Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court’s precedents, he threatens to ”overturn the existing structures of constitutional law." A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ”disappear." Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said. ”Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t look like the legislation," he said. Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush’s claims, legal specialists said. The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush’s assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters. ”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party. Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ”to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time. ”This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ”There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn’t doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

Response:

LOL — "Guitarmen, wake up and pluck wire for sound, let ‘em hear you play"      – CHARLIE CHRISTIAN 1939

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bush challenges hundreds of laws > By Charlie Savage > (Boston Globe) > 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. > Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own > powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the > law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of > the courts. > Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a > bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he > has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the > legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise > upon their work. > Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush > quietly files ‘’signing statements" — official documents in which a > president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal > bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are > recorded in the federal register. > In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the > Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the > bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of > negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. > He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he > has signed. > ”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them > are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back > those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or > the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher > Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who > studies executive power. > The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare > war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ”to make rules for the > government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his > role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress > that seeks to regulate the military. > On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has > passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, > where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against > narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. > After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he > did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is > commander in chief. > Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress > before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a > secret operation, such as the ”black sites" where suspected terrorists > are secretly imprisoned. > Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using > intelligence that was not ”lawfully collected," including any > information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth > Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. > In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in > Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and > regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, > then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that > military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such > issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military > lawyers could not contradict his administration’s lawyers. > Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards > on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva > Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in > Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ‘’security, > intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush > reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements. > The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But > Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ‘’shall refrain" > from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any > crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself. > Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give > information about government activity to congressional oversight > committees. > In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the > Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the > FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law > also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies > of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of > domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports > about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border > security, and counternarcotics efforts. > After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could > withhold all the information sought by Congress. > Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of > Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given > information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening > of checked bags at airports. > It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems > with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush > asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports. > When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it > strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department > of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. > When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement > declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower > protections. > David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in > executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ”the whole idea > that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which > laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore. > Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in > defiance of the Supreme Court’s precedents, he threatens to ”overturn > the existing structures of constitutional law." > A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is > unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution > simply ”disappear." > Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even when > his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, > crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper > said. > ”Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t > look like the legislation," he said. > Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on > Bush’s claims, legal specialists said. > The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush’s assertions, especially > in the secret realm of national security matters. > ”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil > Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department > official in the Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial > review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." > Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes > too far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they > have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that > could damage their party. > Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said > the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch > ”to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the > sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every > time. > ”This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own > constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that > keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ”There is no way for an > independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress > isn’t doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited > executive power."

Response:

> LOL

There must have been some people that "laughed out loud" when Hilter became Chancellor.

Response: