Coursedesign, the Executive Branch,"the President", has absolute control of classified material and the ability to change classification, (tho, daily operations has standard procedures). Congress has tried to rewrite the Executive branch powers, but technically, day to day operations is the responsible of the Executive branch. You can argue all day about " what ifs" and "He didn't do the CIA thing in declassification", but the debate is just spin, really doesn't mean anything. Using "executive orders", "executive finding", or other daily operational procedures, the Executive branch can "move" information as needed. Plus, if the President actions are outside the "congressional wishes", he can pardon the individual outright.

Bjorn,

The article was very good and is not a lone account of what happened, but the article means absolutely nothing to the general public that gets it's news mostly from mainstream television news media.

Ask yourself why this trial was not worthy of live news coverage?

One audio tape was released and the news media selectively played parts of it. Even the hand written note by Cheney that was on Fitzgerald's website for anyone to download (linked in an earlier post of mine above) wasn't even discussed in the news media because it implicated George Bush in the coverup.


Now the audio tapes for the trial will be released and guess what?

Other major networks, including ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, said they would go through the audiotapes and determine how much to broadcast.

The television news media wants you to "trust them" to tell you what went on in there instead of risking the danger of US citizens hearing something you "shouldn't".

Some non-corporate independent reporters have also indicated that some of the testimony really pointed out how complicit many high profile news media people have been in helping the Republicans and the Bush administration deceive the public.

I would LOVE to have seen the trial live on C-Span.

John

There seems to have been some minimal soul searching within the Fourth Estate to understand why so many journalists "sold their souls to the devil."

There are good reasons of access (any journalist who asked inconvenient questions in a White House briefing by the current administration never got the nod again in another press briefing, so they couldn't do their job), and corporate media are dependent on the federal government blessing their mergers and near-monopoly ownership in markets across the U.S. (so criticism of government policy could cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits).

Those reasons also point to the need for independent media that are not so dependent on the federal government that they are unable to criticize them, and for independent analysis and information input outside of the vacuous press briefings.

the Executive Branch has absolute control of classified material and the ability to change classification

When the standard procedures for this very serious matter are disregarded purely for personal, political purposes, then people's respect for that Executive Branch drops off dramatically.

Legal experts have stated that what Mr. Bush did here was actionable Treason. That is not "spin" or "political opinion," just the formal classification.

if the President actions are outside the "congressional wishes", he can pardon the individual outright.

He can't pardon himself, although I think he is feeling pretty smug that he can get away with just about anything whatsoever without risking impeachment, because Congress would presumably be reluctant to do anything that would make Cheney President (even though that would save one middleman...).

If Cheney got the #1 spot, he would of course immediately pardon his young protege.

the Executive Branch,"the President", has absolute control of classified material and the ability to change classification, (tho, daily operations has standard procedures). Congress has tried to rewrite the Executive branch powers, but technically, day to day operations is the responsible of the Executive branch. You can argue all day about " what ifs" and "He didn't do the CIA thing in declassification", but the debate is just spin, really doesn't mean anything. Using "executive orders", "executive finding", or other daily operational procedures, the Executive branch can "move" information as needed.
===========
The Congress has tried to rewrite the Executive branch powers? And the Executive branch has absolute control of classified information suggesting that that is the way it has always been?

Not sure who is filling your head with this stuff, but:

The Goverment classification system falls under Executive Order 13292 which George Bush signed in 2003 that REPLACED previous executive orders on the subject of classified information. It pertains to everyone in government inluding "contractors" in Iraq. The degree of "sensitivity " determines the degree of classification. It is the most recent in a STRING of changes to classified information by the Bush administration. After the Bush administration FINALLY yet reluctantly agreed to the 9/11 Commission investigation the White House wrote some more executive orders that RECLASSIFIED information that had been DECLASSIFIED.

An Executive Order signed by President Clinton in 1995 cut back on the ability of bureaucrats to classify information and, most importantly, encouraged the release of historical records by setting a deadline by which officials must either make the information public or show that continued secrecy is justified.

President Bush's Executive Order 13292 undid that.

It contains language such as:

"...unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." This presumption eliminates a provision of the 1995 Order that contributed to a significant court decision rejecting the government's claim that it was entitled to withhold information solely because it came from a foreign government.....

Reagan (you know the one the news media turned into our "greatest president" the week he died) in 1982 had similar rhetoric in an executive order (which the 1995 order undid). In 1998 that was important because the federal Court of Appeals rejected the government's claim that a communication from the United Kingdom could be withheld from a FOIA request because it had been classified by the Department of State. The court found that the government was unable to demonstrate that there was just cause to withhold the documents and the government released the documents right before the final decision by the court.

Prior to the 1995 Order, most records were classified for an indefinite duration and would only be declassified when the agency took affirmative steps to declassify them. Under the 1995 Order, an official classifying a document was required to identify a period of time that the information would be classified and the document would automatically lose its classified status when this period expired.

The 1995 Order also provided that a period greater than ten years could be established only if the classifier determined that unauthorized disclosure "could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security" for a period greater than 10 years, and that the release "could reasonably be expected to" result in one of nine categories of harm.

The 2003 executive order gives the Executive branch the power to withhold information indefinitely.

The 1995 order included a statement that "If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified." and that ""significant doubt" about the appropriate level of classification should result in classification at the lower level."

Bush's order eliminates both of these provisions and does not say anything about whether doubts should be resolved in favor or against classification. In a briefing discussing Executive Order 13292, the White House stated that the significant doubt provision was removed because "It was the judgment of the professionals who deal with this and the judgment of the affected agencies that that language in either direction simply was vague and did not assist the process."

And of course the one I mentioned above right after the Bush administration caved in to the demands of families of 9/11 victimes to have a 9/11 Commision recinded the provision in the 1995 executive order which prohibited reclassification once information has been declassified. In fact even before Executive Order 13292 was even issued the Bush administration re-classified the information to filter what the 9/11 Commission could have access to.

Although it preserves the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (that has the authority to review decisions made by agencies in the context of automatic declassification exemptions, challenges to classification decisions by holders of classified information, or mandatory declassification review requests) the new order permits the Director of Central Intelligence to REJECT the Panel's rulings if HE determines that declassification "could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security and only the PRESIDENT can reverse it.

The Bush executive order had an addendum that extended all of the above described authority of the President to the VICE PRESIDENT as well (You know - Cheney - the one who is actually running the country because his IQ is above 60).
The Vice Prssident may at his disgression include ANY APPOINTEES HE SO CHOOSES to have the same authority as the President when it comes to classified information and how it is used.

And as I said Executive Order 13292 in 2003 was last in a series of other similar executive orders by the Bush administration.

During the first full fiscal year of the Bush Administration (2001), the total number of classification actions increased by 44 percent to 33,020,887.

----------------But I am sure the news media has covered all of this, haven't they?

John

take deep breaths. . . .
in. . .
out . . .

now for a nice hot cup of herbal tea. . . .

a scented candle

and some ocean sound. . . . . .

aaaaahhhhhhh

This thread has more responses and in depth sharing of perspectives than many threads at this board. We've certainly have got opinions galore, not to mention some sophisticated erudite-ness to boot.

I may not agree with some of the views, but sure respect the level of thoughtfulness and passion expressed.

Wanna launch a poli-sci Op-Ed magazine? We're already half way there - lol
_______________________________

Wanna launch a poli-sci Op-Ed magazine? We're already half way there - lol
===========
Sure!

Let's call it the Vegas "Axis of Editors".

John

Coursedesign.
"Legal experts have stated that what Mr. Bush did here was actionable Treason" that is extreme political spin. There has been a large number of "leaks" of CIA documents claiming their analysis was the proper one, not the one push by the CIA director. I have not heard any of the few "legal experts stated above" claimed these leaked documents acts of Treason. "actionable Treason" claim is a joke and it is shows that the "legal experts" were spinning because legally "actionable Treason" is actually well defined and deals today with nuclear issues well outside these comments. Now congress can impeach Bush for wearing a white shirt on Tuesday and can claim it as "actionable Treason", but it will not survive in US court as a criminal act. The joke of a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, congress can impeach any president for any "issues" they don't like, but more extreme actions has high political cost, so spinning is important. And the media loves it because political parties spend big money promoting their arguments, networks bank accounts grow fat, just look at their account receivables.

Well, I gave the reasons why I think W is safe...

In the meantime we don't get any stewardship of our country, only continuous entertainment.

Yesterday President Bush spoke at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he opened with:

I appreciate the chance to come and share some thoughts with the men and women of AEI. I admire AEI a lot -- I'm sure you know that. After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people. More than 20 AEI scholars have worked in my administration. [...]

So what were some of the leading edge thoughts that were conceived, circulated and embraced by this administration, courtesy of the AEI, in the lead-up to and in the aftermath of, the war in Iraq?

* Whether Osama bin Laden was involved in Tuesday's terrorist assault remains to be seen. Yet if that proves to be so, it is extremely unlikely that he acted on his own. It is far more likely that he operated in conjunction with a state--the state with which the U.S. remains at war, namely Iraq. - 9/13/2001

When you consider all of that deep thinking, isn't it comforting to know that another AEI luminary, Frederick Kagan, is the architect of the [NEW] "new way forward" in Iraq?

(From The Daily Kos)

:O) Like I said, endless entertainment, if nothing else. Hopefully the bill doesn't become due until much later...

When you consider all of that deep thinking, isn't it comforting to know that another AEI luminary, Frederick Kagan, is the architect of the [NEW] "new way forward" in Iraq?
================
Bjorn,

Frederick Kagan is more than just "another AEI luminary".

Frederick Kagan along with his brother Rober Kagan and their father Donald Kagan were architects of the pre-planned Iraq War and the future planned attacks on Iran and Syria. They along with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Bennett (now on CNN), William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Cambone, I Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Stephen Solarz, James Woolsey, Richard Armitage, Elliot Abrams, Steve Forbes, and Jeb Bush, and Zalmay Khalilzad (current US Ambassador to Iraq), and others formed what was called The Project for A New American Century in the nineties.

It is at their own website that many like myself could read their endless position papers and relentless hammering away at The Clinton Administration to carry out preemtive attacks on other countries deemed necessary by PNAC for US interests. The idea was to create a PAX AMERICA , a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests".

Wolfowitz and Libby wrote early on a document that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

On that website are descriptions of peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'; and worries that "Europe could rival the USA".

Their mentality (some call them the "neocons") are for a new world order. One that centers around US interests both military and economic. The letters and statements in the nineties that spell out the need to take out Saddam Hussein and attack Iran and Syria are "mostly" left on the website for anyone to read who knows about PNAC.
I have the relatively few letters and position papers that were expunged. They were on the website up until 2001 when plans to attack Iraq were being finalized by that group. As you can read Clinton wasn't going along with the relentless attacks on him (for not attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein) from this group and the plans were hard to sell to the public as well.

Their golden opportunity to sell the invasion of Iraq came on 9/11. We saw it as a tragedy, but they saw it as a dream come true. After years of ranting and getting nowhere FINALLY they could convince the public (with the help of the news media) that attacking Iraq is revenge for 9/11 because of Iraq's supposed ties to those who attacked us. Rumsfeld was making the case immediately after 9/11 and The Weekly Standard and the Kagans were running front page stories linking Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. So when you say that Frederick Kagan is in charge of the "new way forward" in Iraq you should worry.

In case you didn't know PNAC members run the Pentagon and The Defense Department and The White House now. Some like Wolfowitz were put in charge of the WORLD BANK to facilitate and finalize American corporate takeover of Iraqi resources including, but not limited to oil ("We need an oil law in Iraq" - ever hear Bush say that?) after they get Iraqis to agree to "privatize" that industry. That takes funds and resources like the World Bank (with Wolfowitz in charge). Others like Bolton were put into the UN as UN Ambassador. Fortunately that was short lived. Long enough to see Lebanon destroyed (again) with Bolton and Rice preventing anyone from stopping it.

Makes you wonder why they didn't take the whole website down. The answer is simple. Why bother? They knew the news media would never point out the website. And they never have. In fact they never even mention PNAC. It was reading those PNAC members own writings that made me oppose the Iraq War from the beginning because it was easy to see what those sick psychopaths were up to. I detest the news media for selling this mess to the public for them and choosing their corporate interests over the lives of Americans, Coalition supporters, and of course Iraqis. Some Iraqis like Muqtada al-Sadr wized up to what the US was up to in his country and began printing articles in his newspaper exposing US plans to take over Iraq's economy and set up permanent military bases. When the US closed down his newspaper his supporters began protesting (peacefully), but the US had them arrested. That lit the fuse and you know the rest in terms of his role in the violence.

John

Craftech, all your examples of executive orders has been commented on by the NYTimes a number of times.

"The Congress has tried to rewrite the Executive branch powers? And the Executive branch has absolute control of classified information suggesting that that is the way it has always been? Not sure who is filling your head with this stuff, but:"
Again, Craftech, you have selectively overlook the actually facts in "legal play". I have chosen to limit my response to the following simple items/issues;
1. FOIA -- didn't congress pass this law, to permit a challenge to government docs in a limited way,
2. Separation of powers- Congress controls exclusively what the fed courts can review,( the Supreme Court is outside this guideline control), which has permitted the fed courts to weight-in or meddle in the dispute for fed documents in public courts since the 70's, permitting public challenges to NSA, NSC, DOD secret operations more recently.
3. The creation of the secret Court" in 1978, was actually removing the Supreme Court , ( which had a special 3 judge panel ) from the only court for secret reviews and challenges. Congress permitted this new court to become a "lower fed secret court" with rotating judges, which congress now has direct control over it "review" / powers / operation, ( which it did not have with the US Supreme Court). This court does a lot more than just review "wiretaps". This court is congress's back door to Executive branch absolute control of classified information in a limited way. Since this court functions keeps growing, it could be the 600 lb gorilla that no branch has control of in a timely matter.

A lot of the above is the result of power struggles between all branches of the government. Congress by permitting the lower fed courts to weight in the dispute for documents has increase its "power", not by much "legal" but more publicity value( sound bites), in its battle with the Executive branch over getting Executive documents.

A couple of opinions;
I believe there is a real problem with letting judges with no real experience with National security issues deciding what should and what is not National security issues. Today, the ABA has locked down in most states and all fed courts, to be a judge, you must be a lawyer. But being a lawyer does not automatically mean you understand science, advance math, foreign policy, nuclear weapons, computer science, cellphone tower operating cells, genetic engineering, etc. So winning the ABA approval is a marginal issue at best, I believe that a fed judge's experience and range of knowledge is more important than case law because most judges have excellent law clerks that do most if not all of case law research and graph pro/con opinions on case issues.

I believe no local, city, state government agency should be above "reasonable" FOIA requests, except for citizens' private information or public employees' private information( public wages are not state secrets) or limited law-enforcement issues,ie, staffing . The fed government and the FOIA is a lot more complex issue, people need "reasonable, not absolute" access to information, but defining "reasonable" is the tough issue and always a hot political one.

1. FOIA -- didn't congress pass this law, to permit a challenge to government docs in a limited way,
=========
Sure and the Bush administration refused to comply with a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act by 52 Congress Members – a request seeking information on the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war.

Democrat John Conyers was at the forefront of the attempt in 2005.

"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires your office to respond to a FOIA request within twenty business days from the date of receipt of such a request."

The White House never complied.
Conyers introduced bills to censure the White House for refusing to comply.
The Republican majority refused to pursue it any further. This administration has consistently spit in the face of the separation of powers and the Republicans have abdicated their oversight responsibilities by allowing them to get away with it while in power. They will continue to do so with their use of filibuster in the Senate requiring a 60% vite to pass anything. The news media will blame the Democrats for that as always.
==============
2. Separation of powers- Congress controls exclusively what the fed courts can review,( the Supreme Court is outside this guideline control), which has permitted the fed courts to weight-in or meddle in the dispute for fed documents in public courts since the 70's, permitting public challenges to NSA, NSC, DOD secret operations more recently.
=================
Small example of how that is nonsense:

FEDERAL COURT ORDERS BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO TURN OVER KEY DOCUMENTS ON MERCURY
"In court filings, the EPA argued that it had no obligation to disclose the requested information under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because the documents reflected the agency's "deliberative process." AG Reilly argued that the agency did not have grounds to withhold the information and that the agency's refusing to turn over the documents was part of a disturbing larger practice of trying to hide facts from the public. Today Magistrate Collings ordered the release of the documents."

In terms of the NSA wiretapping debate, you have been victimized by the news media which helped the Bush administration distort the complaint which was strictly about getting a WARRANT first as laid out in FISA law which the Bush administration felt they didn't have to comply with. Many in the news media chose to adopt Republican talking points by claiming that it's opponents were against terrorist surveillance which they were not. Those simplistic tactics appeal to simplistic minds.

In February The Bush administation dismissed seven federal prosecutors to replace them with "appointees" in anticipation of upcoming investigations by Democrats into corrupt Republicans and as punishment for past rulings. They denied it but refused to give a reason for the replacements.
"Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty defended the firings Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, saying, "U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President - they come and go for lots of reasons. . . . We don't really believe we are obligated to set forth a reason or cause."

The nation's 94 U.S. attorneys, the chief federal prosecutors in their respective cities or geographic regions, are generally appointed at the beginning of a president's term, and barring serious misconduct, serve until the end of his tenure or until they choose to leave voluntarily.

Then, of course, is the controversy over the Supremem Court ruling rebuking the Bush admistration self proclaimed right to violate the Geneva Conventions. Senator John McCain and other Republicans were against that, but caved into pressure from the White House allowing the removal of Habeas Corpus (well publicized) and watering down the need for the Bush Administration to comply with the Geneva Conventions (not publicized by the news media). The rub is that Yes the White House cannot violate the Geneva Conventions, BUT it is up to the WHITE HOUSE to determine whether or not they are violating them. John McCain was not asked about this by the news media at all until college students asked him the question on a live session of Hardball with Chris Matthews. His answer was, "The president assured me personally that they wouldn't violate the Geneva Conventions".

LOL I guess that is good enough for the media not to question a Republican about it.
============
3. The creation of the secret Court" in 1978, was actually removing the Supreme Court , ( which had a special 3 judge panel ) from the only court for secret reviews and challenges. Congress permitted this new court to become a "lower fed secret court" with rotating judges, which congress now has direct control over it "review" / powers / operation, ( which it did not have with the US Supreme Court). This court does a lot more than just review "wiretaps". This court is congress's back door to Executive branch absolute control of classified information in a limited way. Since this court functions keeps growing, it could be the 600 lb gorilla that no branch has control of in a timely matter.
===========
You are referring to the secret FISA court that authorizes surveillance, etc in the name of "national security". The people, organizations, or embassies spied on were not notified of either the hearing or the surveillance itself. The American Civil Liberties Union was not able to unearth a single instance in which the target of a FISA wiretap was allowed to review the initial application. Nor would the targets be offered any opportunity to see transcripts of the conversations taped by the government and explain their side of the story. There is no record of such requests ever being denied.
All designed to erode civil liberties and in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and general warrants.The only information required by FISA to be provided to congressional oversight committees is the number of surveillance orders approved each calendar year and brief semi-annual reports.
These potential abuses were expanded by the USA PATRIOT ACT that the Republicans and the News Media criticized the Democrats for insisting that it further eroded privacy and civil liberties. The Republican Congress abdicated it's responsibilites as a check and balance to the Executive branch for five years.
Despite the fact that FISA never turns down a request for a warrant the Executive branch wants to go around it anyway. The Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances."Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable" Collecting data about political critics and individuals who go against Bush administration policies is not.

You shouldn't be so quick to advocate the destruction of the checks and balance system that once made our democracy a model for others to follow. That is clearly what this White House intends to do and has been successful at doing so far with the help of the Republican party, the mainstream news media, and those easily led around by the nose in the public. People who admire the workmanship of the hangman's noose before they are hanged.

John

Everyone thinks that things will change in 2008. What if martial law is declared and we have George Bush forever?
JJK

Everyone thinks that things will change in 2008
===========
I don't think that. Unless there is a sixty percent majority of Democrats in the Senate to get past Republican filibusters and override a Presidential veto (when the news media elects a Republican president) nothing will change.

John

"Everyone thinks that things will change in 2008" meaning "Don’t tell Mama, I’m for Obama"

So, what _how_ do you think the next president will overcome the "plagues" which have ravaged the current presidency? Is it all about who you hire, and if so, will the next guy (or gal) clean house? Is it all about the way things were setup, and if so, will they change? Would it be better if they changed at all?

Oh, and has anyone found that money yet? I'm uh, I'm in Vegas.

It's fascinating how Rudy Giuliani has so eaten up his public speaking applause that he thinks he can win the presidency.

Heard on the radio how the New York press guys are already sharpening their knives to tell the truth about what Rudy was like day-to-day in The City. Can the evangelical wing of the formerly grand old party handle the truth about this guy who makes Bill Clinton seem like a Mormon missionary?

And McCain? I used to be quite impressed with his hard work and integrity 20-25 years ago. Now I see a very different person emerging, and judging from recent polls others have seen it too.

Where is (R) Senator Tom McClintock (sp?) from Oklahoma who led the fight against earmarks together with Barack Obama? That seems like a serious quality guy. Perhaps that is why he is staying out of the race...

crafttech,
you need to actually read the FOIA and the supporting case laws. Requests are not court ordered document surrender, you are really missing the boat on this law.

Separation of powers- maybe you need a review of the constitution. Of course, today's government is very complex, operating structure can be a little fuzzy depending on political spin. No where does it state in the constitution that the Congress controls the Executive branch nor can it decide what information the President can, may or refuse to use in his daily running of his office concerning national security. Both congress and Executive branch are "basically" required to work together to "fund government and pass laws" but congress can fund and pass laws without the presidential support but actually lacks constitution power to enforce its budget and laws, this actually requires the Executive branch to enforce. Even the Supreme Court is required to use the Executive branch for enforcement of it decisions. Now, Congress can "punish" the Executive branch for refusing to enforcing it's "wishes" by cutting funding or revoking agencies' charters or impeaching the President, choosing which ever method they think they can win by.

"In terms of the NSA wiretapping debate, you have been victimized by the news media which helped the Bush administration distort the complaint which was strictly about getting a WARRANT first as laid out in FISA law which the Bush administration felt they didn't have to comply with. Many in the news media chose to adopt Republican talking points by claiming that it's opponents were against terrorist surveillance which they were not. Those simplistic tactics appeal to simplistic minds." Well this is interesting, Craftech, I have been in the Detroit Fed court following the two cases about the NSA wiretapping claims( among other action claims as well) made by a couple of lawyers. Having actually read the plaintiffs' petitions and having talked a couple of times with the plaintiffs, I doubt that you have more knowledge about these cases. You may have beliefs that sky is falling or only a dem can fix all things,....... but that is what makes the US great.

"Collecting data about political critics and individuals who go against Bush administration policies is not. " Amazing, I belief in this too. But all parties collect information, check their blogs.

It is just sad that the Republican party has been flip-flopping so often on the issue of whether the State should be all powerful, aware of all private conversations, and tell citizens in minute detail what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their homes.

Conservatives who are looking for a home certainly have been frustrated enough times by this flip-flopping, and I have to say I am also greatly disturbed by the current abuse of the Pledge of Allegiance in all kinds of meetings. This call for the pledge is issued by people who would be the first to protest its use if we had a Democrat for President; it is simply a cheap parlor trick to try to embarrass people into agreeing with the unreasonable.

We live in a Reign of Stupidity right now, and it has nothing to with (R) vs. (D), because the people got what they voted for (well, more or less anyway).

May this not last too long!

Apit,

You talk in generalities and I provide examples albeit in the last few posts not as many links as I normally do (time) to back them up.

It seems clear to me that you aren't reading my posts or are skimming them. Maybe I should keep them shorter.

You also seem out of touch with the issues seemingly not knowing what they even are these days although I would agree that support for the Bush administration and their destructive policies requires "faith" above all else. Provide some detailed examples next time instead of making me do all this work

Your arguments that the Congress has been somehow trying to undermine the executive branch cannot be backed up with concrete examples enough to make a case. The opposite can be verified with endless examples some of which I gave you above. Legislation that was railroaded through by the last (109th) congress was NOT vetoed by the president. That will not be the case with this congress. If the legislation isn't watered down to get through the Senate Republican filibusters requiring 60 votes for everything Bush will veto it. In the 109th Congress the I watched (C-Span) the Republicans in the House present bills with a closed rule in all but one single appropriations bill. No amendments. The average time the bills (usually over 1000 pages) were allowed to be reviewed by the Democrats was 1 - 3 hours. And then all they could do was complain because no amendments were allowed. The bills were coordinated with the Bush administration to include matters unrelated to the bill. The bills contained language that would do the opposite of what the title was. And the news media kept all of it from the public despite the fact that the bills were invariably designed to screw the average person and favor corporations and administrators. The 109th Congress wouldn't even allow a minimum wage bill to come to the floor for discussion. I heard Democrats beg them some days not end a session early so they could just discuss the minimum wage. Fell on deaf ears. Even after they lost the Republicans in the house still presented comtrovercial legislatio in the same manner and ended EARLY wothout passing 9 of their own appropriations bills. Why? So they could bog down the Democrats in January when they took over with Republican appropriations. Thus the "100 hours" you heard about in the media (without the reason being revealed to the public).

The signing statements, hundreds of which BUsh has signed is a direct slap in the face of the legislative branch and it's power as described in the Constitution. "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."
"[f]ar more than any predecessor."

This has been largely ignored by the news media, especially the television news media.

And after signing the re-authorization of the USA Patriot Act passed by the Republican Congress he quietly (without television media scrutiny) issued a signing statement that stated ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The news media touted the protections to individual liberties of US citizens that went along with Bush's lies and Republican talking points, yet the signing statement that cancelled out these protections went largely unreported.

You need to take the blinders off Apit.

John

the example of "signing statements" fails to provide the specific laws that were transgressed. I saw interpretations without citation. Not that I am in any particular mood to defend the President, who has allowed millions of immigrants laughably termed illegal. . .

the example of "signing statements" fails to provide the specific laws that were transgressed. I saw interpretations without citation. Not that I am in any particular mood to defend the President, who has allowed millions of immigrants laughably termed illegal. . .
============
The reauthorization bill for the USA Patriot Act in March of last year had some new oversight provisions that were not in the original version hurried through Congress after 9/11 and the subject of criticism, mostly by Democrats.
The revised law requires him to inform Congress how the FBI is using its expanded police powers, including those authorizing access to library and bookstore records, search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

The signing statement (quoted in my last post) is an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers. That following media fanfare touting the new "protections" for ordinary citizens.

The signing statement (one of 750 for Bush) I referenced would have gone almost completely unreported instead of just mostly ignored if it weren't for Senator Patrick Leahy (D) Vt. who inserted a letter into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee of which he is a member and was a co-author of the original 2001 USA Patriot Act.

"The letter objected to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said."

Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the PATRIOT Act — provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress — represented "nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."

"The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. "The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges.

"The signing statement with the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:

*......The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.........*

This statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the President asserts broad authority to use his independent judgment to interpret and apply the law. The President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved his authority to challenge parts of the law passed by Congress.[12] "

In July of 2006 The American Bar Association released a report that focused on President Bush's use of so-called "signing statements," which, the report concluded, "weaken[s] our cherished system of checks and balances and separation of powers."

The ABA report stated that "signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto," and concluded that Bush's use of signing statements "weaken[s] our cherished system of checks and balances and separation of powers":

The Recommendations of the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine recognize and honor those cherished principles. The American Bar Association has always been in the forefront of efforts to protect the rule of law and our constitution, and it is now incumbent upon this great organization to speak out forcefully against actions which would weaken our cherished system of checks and balances and separation of powers. We urge the House of Delegates to adopt the proposed Recommendations.

Based on these findings, the ABA Task Force, which was appointed by ABA President Michael S. Greco, made five "unanimous recommendations" for curtailing the threat of signing statements. The task force recommended that the ABA:

oppose, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, a President's issuance of signing statements to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.

The task force also recommended that the ABA "urge Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements," and "urge Congress to enact legislation enabling the President, Congress, or other entities or individuals, to seek judicial review of such signing statements to the extent constitutionally permissible."



According to Neil Kinkopf, associate professor at Georgia State University College of Law, "[h]istorically, signing statements served a largely innocuous and ceremonial function." He explained that, generally, they "are issued by the President to explain his reasons for signing a bill into law. A signing statement thus serves to promote public awareness and discourse in much the same way as a veto message." However, Bush has often used signing statements for a very different purpose. As reported in The Boston Globe, in his signing statements, "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office."

A Nexus database search revealed that following the report by the American Bar Association criticizing the Bush "signing statements" only The Washington Post, The AP, The NY Times, The Chicago Tribune, The July 25 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann covered the report and recommendations by the American Bar Association.

The rest of the programming on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX NEWS, NBC, and PBS completely ignored the ABA report. The major newspapers not mentioned like the LA Times ignored it as well.

The Bush Administration and the Republican party are systematically dismantling our democracy and our constitution with the help of the news media.

John

Dubya will just be another failed, former president from Texas. Seems you can't be from Texas and not be a cocky SOB.

When he leaves office, he'll turn into a hermit and grow his hair long just like LBJ, because no one will want anything to do with him.