It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Agent47
Beam me up.
Its an addendum saying he didn't "feel" required, not that he would "flat out not do it".
Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't feel comfortable with a President "adding" things to law after they've already been voted on.
Originally posted by Agent47
Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't feel comfortable with a President "adding" things to law after they've already been voted on.
Then maybe a system of government with an Executive branch isn't for you. The executive should have the ability to change laws Congress passes (the President (whoever it is) should have the ability to line item veto to get rid of pork) because sometimes Congress isn't always right.
Originally posted by Agent47
The reason why this was moved from ATSNN? Cause its not news its speculation.
Bush wrote: ''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 . . . "
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Maybe a checks and balances system isn't for you then. Perhaps a dictatorship or a monarchy will be more to your liking.
It's called oversight. If the President add or takes anything from a law, it should go back to Congress plain and simple. Did this little "addendum" go back to Congress or is it going to? Are you telling me Bush simply has the power to change laws without anyone stopping him?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
The Boston Globe article doesn't speculate. What the hell are you reading?
What have you submitted to say you have any experience in the matters?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
I am wondering why this story was shuttled from ATSNN to ATS?
Someone have an agenda?
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.
That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.
More...
Originally posted by Agent47
I don't need to make light of the attrocities of the Nazi's and then slink into the shadows to make a point.
Originally posted by marg6043
People when you are going to understand that Mr. Bush is not like any other president, Mr. Bush is at War and that gives him Executives powers that he can used any way he wants to.
Originally posted by marg6043
Regenmacher, I agree with you that is why I made my sarcastic comment, we have to be aware that power corrupt and when the executive branch thinks itself above any other brach in the government we will have problems with the checks and balances.
People when you are going to understand that Mr. Bush is not like any other president, Mr. Bush is at War and that gives him Executives powers that he can used any way he wants to.
Even signing documents after they have been in congress, so don't be surprised.