I'm not sure what I would call them because the laws and the statements in question have not been clearly presented into evidence to me.
==============
????
I linked them and quoted from them. I am not sure what it is you don't understand. The Patriot Act for example. A Congresional bill signed into LAW to be executed by the executive branch only the executive branch issues a statement saying he doesn't have to follow the LAW if he chooses not to.
That and the unprescedented string of others by the Bush administration violates the Constitution and the American Bar Association reported as such last July.
Read the links I provided. I quoted two actual signing statements. Read them.

If the American Bar Association clearly sees them as violations and not merely "interpretations" why isn't that clear to you?????
===
"and if Nancy Pelosi had kahones she would press to cut funding and let the chips fall where they may"
====
That comes straight from the news media spin.

The Republicans spent a week in the House using the third grade logic that merely discussing the notion of not supporting the troop escalation was "hurting the troops" and "aiding the enemy".
The news media gave that third grade logic equal validity to the simple resolution that stated [Yes we support the troops. No we don't support the troop surge]. 14 Republicans voted for it as well as all but two Democrats, but the news media termed that "ONLY" 14 Republicans.

It was designed to force people out of hiding behind the news media and force them take a position. It did that.

Following that the media immediately began yesterday to adopt the usual Republican talking points adopting the term "slow bleed strategy" to indicate to the public that the Democrats want to cut off funding for the troops already there. Same rhetoric spewed all week on the House floor by Republicans. Rhetoric adopted immediately by Republican pundits like Wolf Blitzer of CNN.

Today the Senate Republicans once again voted down a Resolution to have a DISCUSSION of the Resolution. Same thing they did the week before the House took it up. Mitch McConnell(R) and Trent Lott (R) have created a loophole that will require a 60 percent majority to pass anything in the Senate instead of a simple majority. And that includes even a resolution to agree to discuss Iraq on the Senate floor because that will "hurt the troops" and "aid the terrorists".

Third grade logic that appeals to a third grade mentality.

Some presidential candidate cowards like John McCain didn't even show up so that they could avoid having to vote at all. Of course, the news media didn't see it as cowardice because they may have to elect him president if he gets the Republican nomination. So what is it you expect Nancy Pelosi to do when the problem is that you didn't elect enough Democrats in the Senate to get anything done?

John

not complaining about this stuff on an edit forum,, i don't have to click on it. But, man why dont you guys run for office and do something with all that passion,, or maybe you have, or maybe you are going to, but wow, dont have the time to read all the very long opinions , but i will guess there is quite a bit of bashing of the us pres,,and republicans ( sorry if I'm wrong} how about if the next pres is Hillary............................i will find time to read them then.

I've had my fill of both Bushs and Clintons. Hopefully the next one will be a little better than the last two.

Craftech, again you provide a document that is not what you claim,"If the American Bar Association clearly sees them as violations and not merely "interpretations" why isn't that clear to you?????"

this ABA task force report clearly states at the top that this study that doe not represent the legal views of the ABA , only represents the views of the submitting entity, how unclear can that be? Reviewing the index, reveals that this task force has no members that are considered in the top 100 Constitutional scholars, but are ex-Clinton staff and Clinton ex-appointed small-time prosecutors. Wow--- want a deep thinking group. Guess who is spinning now.

"Third grade logic that appeals to a third grade mentality." so, the grand master minds of the Saturday emergency session failed. It appears the Dem Senator leader did not have votes he claimed to have. But in your mind, his failure to plan correctly is a Republican problem. All this excitement for poorly executed voting strategy for a non-biding resolution. What going to happen on "real" tough issues? Oh, I forgot, the Republicans has brainwash the staffers so the dem leaders are unable to punish Bush for his lies or could it be the dems are wasting too many resources propping up their majority for the next election cycle?

"Mitch McConnell(R) and Trent Lott (R) have created a loophole that will require a 60 percent majority to pass anything in the Senate instead of a simple majority." wow--more spin, the 60% rule, called the super majority, was created by the Dems when they controlled the Senate by a healthy number and never felt threaten by it until they lost power.

Craftech, again you provide a document that is.................
=====
And you STILL haven't provided anything at all for us to look at except lazy rhetoric.

From the ABA website

"ABA President Michael S. Greco has appointed the Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to examine constitutional and legal issues raised by the practice of presidents of the United States of attaching legal interpretations to federal legislation they sign.

The Task Force will present a report with recommendations to the ABA House of Delegates at the 2006 Annual Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii (August 7-8, 2006).

Please check back often for updates on the work of the Task Force. "
-------
OK Apit,

It's time to answer detailed argument with more than rhetoric because that is all you have done so far. Stop being lazy.

You stated:

"Reviewing the index, reveals that this task force has no members that are considered in the top 100 Constitutional scholars, but are ex-Clinton staff and Clinton ex-appointed small-time prosecutors. Wow--- want a deep thinking group. Guess who is spinning now."

1. Demonstrate with links to prove that all TWELVE are ex-Clinton staff and Clinton ex-appointed small time prosecutors. Twelve links.

2. And then after you are done explain to us why the president of the American Bar Association Michael S Greco (as I linked for you above)appointed these non "deep thinking" people.
----------

You stated:

"It appears the Dem Senator leader did not have votes he claimed to have. "

3. Show us a link to a quote by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid where he stated that he claimed to have the votes.

---
You stated:

"wow--more spin, the 60% rule, called the super majority, was created by the Dems when they controlled the Senate by a healthy number and never felt threaten by it until they lost power."

4. Show us with links where the Democrats originated the concept of a "supermajority".

5. Show us with links where the Democrats used the Supermajority rule to block a resolution to have a discussion on the Senate floor.

John

Risce1,

You come off as someone who gets unhinged when you hear criticism, whether it's directed at you or your political choices. Sorry, but no one's going to give Dubya a blue ribbon just for trying.

Life isn't an elementary school, where you're shielded from reality and criticism, and given accolades that you shouldn't be getting. You have to put up or shut up. Vietnam was LBJ's undoing, just as Iraq will be Bush's.

So stay out of the thread if you don't have the stomach for it.

Anyone catch Fox News' answer to the Daily Show? It's truly horrid, but I'm digging the laugh track. If there was ever a doubt that conservatives had no sense of humor, this will rectify that.

Sorry, but no one's going to give Dubya a blue ribbon just for trying.

It's amazing how often George W. Bush does get a pass just for trying. We've all seen him be less coherent than the average member of a High School debate team, or address a serious problem by just repeating "it's hard work." He benefits from a standard of low expectations like no other national figure. I don't think other Republicans would be given this benefit of the doubt. Giuliani or McCain would be ruined if they gave a performance in the debates like Bush's fist debate against Kerry. I don't think Jeb Bush would be given this benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what accounts for this. There is a carefully crafted image that Rove created for Bush as just a regular guy, for example, the ranch Bush bought in 1999 to make Bush look like a cowboy. Can anyone else point to another oil executive who has a regular guy reputation? There was the fact, that Bush was the nexus between two strains of Republican party members: the country club and the religious social conservatives. But even with all that, his approval ratings were in the 50's before 9/11. Did 9/11 create such a shield that it hid obvious flaws? Somehow it seems that 9/11 doesn't account for all it. Maybe it's because the groundwork was laid before 9/11. We'll see how long the halo lasts for Giuliani. He may be in a different position, because 9/11 resurrected Giuliani's political career. He was going through a flamboyant public divorce and was about to lose a Senate race.

Who knows, Buster. It's hard to tell. But I've never for once thought Dubya was in charge. Cheney and Rove call the shots, and Dubya's their puppet.

Dubya's a braggadocious simpleton, who's connections got him to where he is now. But he's certainly no great thinker. Remember when he tried to open that locked door? You could actually see his lack of mental capacity. Like a computer that just froze. Too bad Rove didn't coach him about locked doors.

Being a moderate, I can appreciate the strengths of both sides. I like Giuliani. He would definitely be an improvement over 43. I used to like McCain, but he went and turned into a politician.

The dems have a few good choices, but no one really stands out for me at this point.

Craftech, it is you that practices lazy rhetoric. You post articles that did not correctly support your claim and are still trying to avoid

"The Task Force will present a report with recommendations to the ABA House of Delegates at the 2006 Annual Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii (August 7-8, 2006)." ????
Where does it state the ABA House of Delegates voted on and accepted the report? It doesn't, because the ABA House of Delegates rejected the findings.

""ABA President Michael S. Greco has appointed the Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to examine constitutional and legal issues " This statement sounds impressive. It does not take a lot of logic to understand if you are going examine constitutional and legal issues this critical, you would want the best constitutional and legal scholars. But did Greco,( a big Dem contributor) do this, no, he did not, he hand pick individuals that would support his political view. In the index of the article, listing the committee members, the most common thread is international law and criminal law practice, where it should have been constitutional theory scholars or at least, lawyers practicing constitutional law(separation of powers) in front of the Supreme Court.

"Please check back often for updates on the work of the Task Force. " More lazy rhetoric by you. There are no updates, a meaningless post to suggest there is activity on this issue in the ABA House of Delegates.

Craftech, all this "noise" about Presidential Signing Statements is really comical, because local, state and fed prosecutors daily decide what cases they are going to enforce with which laws and if its worth spending the resources to prosecute. It's not uncommon for state and fed attorneys to sort out who has the higher claim.

All this noise about Presidential Signing Statements would fade away if Congress would stop trying to pass massive bills (1000+ pages), into smaller, 3 to 6 bills at time, forcing a veto or authorization. Of course, pork projects, unpopular proposed laws and "other" issues would be harder for congress to hide from the public.

I believe that every congressional individual should be required to sign a statement that they have read and understands the bill their voting on.

I believe that every bill should have an accurate but readable summary available for the average citizen can read it or hear an audio version of it 10 working days before congress votes on it. Available in every public library, Fed court building,etc...

I believe that all lower fed judges should undergo a yearly standard testing setup by a panel of Supreme judges. If they fail, they must recurse themselves from all future cases until a panel of judges approves their performance.

Dgates, thanks, that video was funny, B.O. just increase his percentage with under-30 voting crowd to 99.99%. If he can work that humor, he'll be unstoppable! Love that T,
"don't tell mama" should sell well.

Craftech, it is you that practices lazy rhetoric. You post articles that did not correctly support your claim and are still trying to avoid.......
=========
Blah Blah Blah....
I'll skip the rest because you still haven't backed up your LAST statements and I said it was YOUR turn to do a little work. Instead you posted more illogical unsupported distortions based upon the research I DID that have nothing to back them up. So I'll ask you AGAIN from the last post to back up your statements with SOMETHING anyway???

You stated:

"Reviewing the index, reveals that this task force has no members that are considered in the top 100 Constitutional scholars, but are ex-Clinton staff and Clinton ex-appointed small-time prosecutors. Wow--- want a deep thinking group. Guess who is spinning now."

1. Demonstrate with links to prove that all TWELVE are ex-Clinton staff and Clinton ex-appointed small time prosecutors. Twelve links.

2. And then after you are done explain to us why the president of the American Bar Association Michael S Greco (as I linked for you above)appointed these non "deep thinking" people.
----------

You stated:

"It appears the Dem Senator leader did not have votes he claimed to have. "

3. Show us a link to a quote by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid where he stated that he claimed to have the votes.

---
You stated:

"wow--more spin, the 60% rule, called the super majority, was created by the Dems when they controlled the Senate by a healthy number and never felt threaten by it until they lost power."

4. Show us with links where the Democrats originated the concept of a "supermajority".

5. Show us with links where the Democrats used the Supermajority rule to block a resolution to have a discussion on the Senate floor.


With all due respect Apit:

If you are unable to back up your rhetoric your credibility is in question here.

John

It's amazing how often George W. Bush does get a pass just for trying........ don't know what accounts for this.
=======
The news media accounts for this
=======
I don't think other Republicans would be given this benefit of the doubt. Giuliani or McCain would be ruined if they gave a performance in the debates like Bush's fist debate against Kerry. I don't think Jeb Bush would be given this benefit of the doubt.
=====
Yes they will. All a Republican has to do to get the so-called "analysts following the debates to declare him a winner is to have a pulse. A few fake "fact checks" followed up by reinforcement throughout the day and night and the public starts buying into it. A majority anyway. They have already won:

McCain is still a "straight shooter" and a "straight talker" according to the news media despite his flip flops on Iraq, Abortion, etc............. and a man with integrity who is rarely if ever questioned on his flip flops by the news media. He is a man of "great moral fiber", but no one ever asks him if he would ever have been elected to the House of Representatives if he hadn't left his first wife for the wealthy and connected Cindy Lou Hensley? No one asks McCain why in 2000 the director of the National Right to Life Committee published an article entitled
. And why he stated early on (correctly) that Iraq was A huge pot of honey that has attracted a lot of flies yet in 2000 decided to fully support the Bush Administration. And despite that is still viewed throught the news media as

a "straight talker",

a maverick",

and a "straight shooter".

Ask yourself why the news media , in an attempt deflect Republican DIRECT BRIBES (because Republicans and the White House suggested) that Democrats ALSO took money from Jack Abramoff INDIRECTLY by accepting money from ORGANIZATIONS that got money from Jack Abranoff (not illegal by the way from Abramoff "indirectly" or anyone else "indirectly")
....and naming the DEMOCRATS ONLY who "indirectly got money this way the Republicans and the News Media conveniently left John McCain out of that FALSE equation. The tribes that donated to McCain received money from Jack Abramoff according to Mark Salter, McCain's chief of staff, confirmed that McCain received "at least two donations from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians while Abramoff was their lobbyist." The AP reported that Salter said he expects McCain will give this money back..

But that wasn't worthy of telling the public in the television and most of the print news media. And why does no one in the news media call McCain a flip-flopper because of McCain's February 2006 vote to extend Bush's 2003 tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, which McCain had long opposed, saying they exacerbated the budget deficit.

No, In a debate with a Democrat in 2008 McCain has already won.

And Giuliani is "America's mayor" instead of America's Ex-husband.
No one in the news media will ask Giuliani about any flip-flop he makes because the term "flip-flop" doesn't apply to Republicans. And in the case of Giuliani's well publicized sexual escapades (in New York newspapers anyway):
While serving as mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani actually moved out of the mayor's mansion and lived with a gay couple while cheating on his wife. At one point, Giuliani's wife sought a restraining order to prevent his mistress from entering the mansion.
NONE of that will be part of the discussion in the news media.
No, instead, pundits like Chris Matthews on MSNBCs Hardball make statements like:
Giuliani is the perfect candidate to replace Bush, and declares that Giuliani "looks like president to me," compares Giuliani to JFK, and gushes over Giuliani's "street credentials." Rather than questioning whether Giuliani's personal indiscretions will be distracting as he has with ANY discussion of Hillary Clinton Is Bill gonna be a good boy? Matthews simply questions how Giuliani got "that pee smell out of the subway."
Rudy is now a social conservative. That's not "flip-flopping" of course. Watch Giuliani on "Hannity and Colmes" on say:
HANNITY: Partial birth?

GIULIANI: Partial birth abortion? I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban's gonna be upheld. I think it should be. I think as long as there's a provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done.

HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.

GIULIANI: Well, if it doesn't have provision for the mother then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother then I would support. And I do.

Yet on CNN onn Dec 2, 1999 Giuliani (when he was getting ready to run against Hillary Clinton for the Senate) via Nexis search:
[GARY] TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

And on CNN Feb 6, 2000 via Nexis search:

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.

BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.

Watch and see if Wolf Blitzer EVER calls Giuliani out on this Flip-Flop.

ABC News on February 6, 2000:

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....

The version of the ban that Rudy opposed back then contained the provision for the life of the mother that Rudy is now saying is a prerequisite for his support of it.

Rudy will get a free pass from the news media because he is a Republican.

From the February 14 edition of CNN Headline News

SMERCONISH: It's funny you say that. I have this vision of the '08 convention for the D's, you know, where -- where -- they're handing out the flip-flops, and they're saying, "Look at this guy on abortion and gay rights."

I have to tell you something. I would have more respect for a candidate -- this is just me talking -- who had a viewpoint with which I disagreed but who stood his or stood her ground, rather than somebody on the important issue of abortion or gay rights who all of a sudden has a -- you know, an -- an epiphany.

HEALY: Well, that's what Rudy Giuliani's people are saying. You know, we'll see what happens, but they're insisting that Rudy will not backtrack on his support for abortion rights. But if he did that, he'd be killed.

SMERCONISH: But he's -- he's already -- Patrick, he's already talking, you know, strict constructionism. What does that mean --

HEALY: Sure.

SMERCONISH: -- other than a tip of the hat to the pro-life crowd? Let me ask you a question that puzzles me. John McCain -- and I like him very, very much. How do McCain's numbers continue to rise at a time when support for the war dissipates, goes through the floor?
-----
Then there are all the ethical questions regarding Bernard Kerick etc
I'll get into that another time, but.....

No, In a debate with a Democrat in 2008 Giuliani has already won. Same for any Republican candidate.

Crafttech, you gotta get out more. You're too wound up.

Ride a bike, smell the air, get a girlfriend.

I'm just as fired up as Craftech even though I don't write such lengthly posts. Dubya and his cohorts should be on trial for treason and yet a good proportion of the country can't seem to see this and still thinks of him as some kind of patriot.

dgates you are correct i dont have much stomach for people who think they are the only ones that have it all figured out,, especially assholes like you.have a very special day.

Crafttech, you gotta get out more.
Ride a bike, smell the air,
========
That's what I was doing when I typed all that......

John

dgates you are correct i dont have much stomach for .....
======
Risce 1

Please delete the post. It's going to turn what I see as a really civil discussion into a fight. He wasn't being malicious and I didn't take it that way. In addition to that you will be giving a forum moderator a reason to lock or delete the entire thread. Please remove it.

Thanks,

John

I think this thread needs to be locked!

93 posts in one thread, with generally very high quality on the discourse.

Let's hope the one single mild anatomical reference stays at that number, it seems so unnecessary in this context to insult our fellow Vegas editors.

Risce1,

I thought I told you to stay out of this thread.

Either way, I'm glad I unnerved you. Didn't take much.

"I've had my fill of both Bushs and Clintons. Hopefully the next one will be a little better than the last two."

If I had a time machine, I'd go back and whisper in James Madison's ear, "What about prohibiting the offspring, parent, sibling or spouse of a president from ever becoming president?" Seems like the Framers should have thought of that, seeing as they were trying to do away with monarchies.

I'd still support that as a constitutional amendment.