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.

 

Specter Preparing to Sue Bush in Federal Court Over Signing Statements

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I have not problems with a president doing what he most due during times of war . . . but taking into consideration that the War in question was his own doing to a country with not provocation . . . and and a war declared to an ideology . . .

It makes me question as any good law abiding citizens as the powers invested in the president by himself. . .

One question that comes to mind is . . . who can control a president that seems to be over anybody else in the governmental ladder due to political power because of war. . .




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

by niteboy82:

REPLY: Contrary to what you believe, I have no problems whatsoever with what you call this "problem." It's quite obvious you haven't done much research into either the ABA or Mr. Sphincters political background..

That one of the presidents own party is considering the suit has been made an issue of before I did, and I'm sure it will continue to be. I merely stated the Mr. Sphincter is a RINO, which means, Republican In Name Only. Just so you know, there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican; either you are or you are not.

As to the leanings of the ABA, that, too, shows little research into their actions/beliefs over the past 25 years, but in no way indicates their lack of knowledge of law.

As to your sarcasm pertaining to the "activist judges" terminology, it at least substantiates their existence. Thanks!

As to corruption of the separation of powers, sad as it for you to realize, a charge or accusation is by no means a finding of guilt, as was. Sadly, this was evident during the previous administration, during which it appears you were asleep.

On the contrary, I have found many issues of contention towards the president, though mostly with his social and immigration issues.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Contrary to what you believe, I have no problems whatsoever with what you call this "problem." It's quite obvious you haven't done much research into either the ABA or Mr. Sphincters political background..


Well, when I spout things out, I attempt to pull sources, I definitely don't go around running my mouth about things like you have shown.



That one of the presidents own party is considering the suit has been made an issue of before I did, and I'm sure it will continue to be. I merely stated the Mr. Sphincter is a RINO, which means, Republican In Name Only. Just so you know, there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican; either you are or you are not.


Quite silly, again. If they call themselves a moderate republican, that's in fact what they are. You may not see it that way, but that's not the way the world works. I'm sure you'd be more than happy to make the rules, wouldn't you?


As to the leanings of the ABA, that, too, shows little research into their actions/beliefs over the past 25 years, but in no way indicates their lack of knowledge of law.


I didn't spew out the accusation against the ABA, you did, your burden to prove it.


As to your sarcasm pertaining to the "activist judges" terminology, it at least substantiates their existence. Thanks!


No problem. You need some substance after all.
Feel free to source me saying it whenever you want.



As to corruption of the separation of powers, sad as it for you to realize, a charge or accusation is by no means a finding of guilt, as was. Sadly, this was evident during the previous administration, during which it appears you were asleep.


So because one evil president (and I have many times expressed my distaste for Clinton in this forum) perpetrates a wrongful act, it's just fine and dandy for the next one to go unchecked as well? Interesting.


On the contrary, I have found many issues of contention towards the president, though mostly with his social and immigration issues.

Great! Maybe one day they'll become self evident that you have found them and we'll see you think outside the partisan box.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

by marg6043:
I have not problems with a president doing what he most due during times of war . . . but taking into consideration that the War in question was his own doing to a country with not provocation . . . and and a war declared to an ideology"


REPLY: A war authorized Congress. It is not a war against an ideology; He cannot actually say it, but it is a religious war against a religion-turned-politic. As has been proven time and again, Saddams payments to the family members of suicide bombers, his ties with Al Queda, and the 14 or so UN sactions ignored by him, were enough to be considered a provocation.


It makes me question as any good law abiding citizens as to the powers invested in the president by himself.


REPLY: Those powers still must fall within Constitutional guidlines and, if someone has evidence that they are not, then the Supreme Court would come into play. That's why they are there. However, even THEY make mistakes, as was evident upon their ruling and ignoring of Supreme Court precedent pertaining to enemy combatants. Even the FISA court is unconstitutional, but they have yet to make such a ruling, because it hasn't been brought before them; and most likely will not be.


One question that comes to mind is . . . who can control a president that seems to be over anybody else in the governmental ladder due to political power because of war.


REPLY: No-one, as it has been since the first president.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

REPLY: A war authorized Congress. It is not a war against an ideology; He cannot actually say it, but it is a religious war against a religion-turned-politic. As has been proven time and again, Saddams payments to the family members of suicide bombers, his ties with Al Queda, and the 14 or so UN sactions ignored by him, were enough to be considered a provocation.



Actually the war was against Afghanistan . . . Iraq was something that was a most do. . . taking into consideration that Saudi Arabia was involve also. . . it looks like pure hypocrisy to go after Saddam and please is more links to the 9/11 and Saudi that ever was to Iraq and Saddam.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

by marg6043:
Actually the war was against Afghanistan . . . Iraq was something that was a most do. taking into consideration that Saudi Arabia was involve also. . . it looks like pure hypocrisy to go after Saddam and please is more links to the 9/11 and Saudi that ever was to Iraq and Saddam.


REPLY; If you've never seen it, the info on the link should bring you some insight:

[link] www.freerepublic.com...

What is/was done behind the scenes concerning Saudi Arabia might come to light in the future; we don't know. That he chose to kill two birds with one stone (Iraq) is all good.
Attempting to bring democracy into the middle of a region still living under tyrannical rule, and also keeping the confrontation over there, instead of on American soil.

Perhaps the best thing to date was getting Kadaffi to give up "his" WMD's and nuclear program.... without firing a shot, and no blood spilled. I parenthesize "his" because much if not all came from Iraq. No matter what, it's off the market, and cannot be used against anyone.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   


the AP article downplayed its own scoop with a sentence almost as amusing as it is inane: "There is no indication the Iraqi's alleged terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi intelligence."


Just propaganda when things started to become questionable by the polls in the US when people started to drop their support for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. . .

When it comes to this war and its reasons . . . I personally question everything . . . the same way that I have the right to question what the elected government and officials are doing in our behave and at our expenses.

Bush has become a president that has lost its credibility and his doings under the powers of war are going to do the most horrible damage to our nation when other presidents take over . . .



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Obviously the AP (hardly un-biased) didn't read the entire thing, or didn't understand it's implications.


by marg6043


Just propaganda when things started to become questionable by the polls in the US when people started to drop their support for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.


REPLY: Again, propaganda is usually the truth; the opposite of misinformation and disinformation. The MOAC onformation has been aroud for a coup[le of years, and I doubt most anyone is even aware of it, so it wouldn't affect the polls unless it received major media attention; which of course they won't do, since it would cause the polls to go up.


When it comes to this war and its reasons . . . I personally question everything . . . the same way that I have the right to question what the elected government and officials are doing in our behave and at our expenses.


REPLY: I couldn't agree with you more. But "questioning" has more to do with the acceptance and research of ALL pertinent information, and making an informed decision, no matter what your personal beliefs on any given issue.


Bush has become a president that has lost its credibility and his doings under the powers of war are going to do the most horrible damage to our nation when other presidents take over . . .


REPLY: Again, I agree. But much of what Bush, and America, is now going through (including 9-11), and what will happen in the future, has been brought about by the inaction of the previous admin.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Again, I agree. But much of what Bush, and America, is now going through (including 9-11), and what will happen in the future, has been brought about by the inaction of the previous admin.


I can not agree with you more, that is something that is not question about and neither debate.


Now I still question the war powers and the doings in secrecy of the present administration.

Like any conspiracy believer I believe everything is done for a reason Bush is setting the stage for what is to come as our constitution may lose its powers.

When the constitution is in danger so is also in danger our nation and its citizens.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

posted by niteboy82:

Well, when I spout things out, I attempt to pull sources,
REPLY: Ah, well, I have over 38 years of sourcing and independent investigation. You?


Quite silly, again. If they call themselves a moderate republican, that's in fact what they are.


REPLY: Believe whatever trips your trigger.


I didn't spew out the accusation against the ABA, you did, your burden to prove it.


REPLY: Not my burden if you disbelieve it, and I'm sure you'd side with many of their ideals.


So because one evil president (and I have many times expressed my distaste for Clinton in this forum) perpetrates a wrongful act, it's just fine and dandy for the next one to go unchecked as well? Interesting.


REPLY: I have seen some of your posts pertaing to ex-president pantload, and I appload you for them; however, there's little comparison between the two in their actions or beliefs.


".... and we'll see you think outside the partisan box.


REPLY: My partison box= Conservative Constitutional Libertarian.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

by marg6043:

When the constitution is in danger so is also in danger our nation and its citizens.


REPLY: Again, you and I agree. But nothing in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights has been lost.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
bush felt the danger
and he planned ahead


he felt the danger from the bar association..

and quickly had a REPUBLICAN sue him in the SUPREME COURT
that way the republican lawyers can SCREW IT UP and case gets thrown out
(makes the republicans LOOK LIKE they really care too)

where he planned ahead and OWNS HALF of the judges (if not ALL)

looks like he's gonna get off

its gonna be private too...
cant have them "STATE SECRETS" get out that he REALLY IS GUILTY

what OTHER state secrets does he NOT WANT TO GET OUT???


the fact that they REALLY DO HAVE CIA TORTURE CAMPS???
THAT THEY REALLY DID ORCHESTRATE 911???

that kenny boy's death (and 2 (two) other enron deaths he was part of????

yep,....... torture, death camps,people vanishing,illegal wiretaps.......
they are ALL SUPPOSED TO BE state secrets

what a leader.......wants war BUT pulls strings so he doesnt have to go???

and you army guys.... you not only FOLLOW him
you even VOTED for him........

yeah i see, follow the COWARD into war


yeah i said it

[edit on 26-7-2006 by yeah right]

[edit on 26-7-2006 by yeah right]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Yeahright,

You may have something there. Will this circus ever stop??? I want to sue for mental anguish, and a government who drove me to take anti-depressants.
Can i do that?





posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
It's about time our soldout congress proposed something to halt the ever encroaching powers of the executive branch. The constitution is very clear on this issue, the formation of law is to be left exclusively to the congress. Period. A sitting president has 2 options, in regards to proposed legislation, sign it, or veto it. Thats it, no adding, no subtracting, one or the other. If a president cant sign a bill, then he vetos it, and it goes back to Congress. If people dont see the erosion of the ideas this country was founded on, like the separation of powers, at this point, I'm not sure they ever will.


Just my two cents.....



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Err… "yeah right" so what’s you view on Signing Statements again? Are those short broken up sentences and all caps words supposed to serve a purpose?

Now, even if the Signing Statement issue goes all the way to the SCOTUS it will be upheld, why? Well I’m sure for some of you anytime something Bush does gets upheld it must be because he’s "buddies" helped him out. But reality is most judges will agree that Signing Statements do not add on to a law, nor do they have any legal backing, so a President can’t choose to follow a certain part of a bill/law and ignore others. All they do is make clear to the executive branch how the President views the law, they also make the Presidents views clear if it should court before a court appeal and or review.

Interesting that Signing Statements are now deemed "unconstitutional" by the ABA and others, yet they’ve been around since Eisenhower. What’s next? Executive Orders are also unconstitutional now because Bush is using them? Where is the common sense?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
mr west point23

the way i see a signing statement is this...............

they mean NOTHING....absolutely NOTHING............

if you sign a contract (bill of law) you AGREE with it , or you would NOT have signed it...

the original contract makers, WROTE THE CONTRACT.........
if bush disagrees, then they VOID IT and make a NEW CONTRACT..........

a signing statement ONLY EXPRESSES HIS OPINION (doesnt mean squat!!)

the senate/congress DID NOT SIGN IT AFTER BUSH DID with those statements on it

they signed it WITHOUT STATEMENTS ON IT.......BEFORE bush added to it

in a legal point of view.....

bush , by adding to it, and NOT getting approval from congress
(the makers of the contract)
VOIDS THE CONTRACT.......

BUT, since he DID sign it, he agrees to the contract, IN FULL. end of story

any body in a business or any lawyer will tell you that.........

and if you do DISAGREE with me on that, then........
take your homeloan/insurance papers and ADD to it and make it the way YOU WANT IT
and see if it holds up in court.......

and then watch them laugh at you........ even the judge...

this would theoretically mean,, every contract we ever got/signed.
we could change it any way we like.... sign it and send it back....
and EXPECT the maker of it ,to go along with YOUR CHANGES.......yeah right!!!

west point, this would mean, that your enlistment paper,
you could change it to say you are not going to iraq,, right???
you could say YOU will only do active duty on your homeland,
will not carry a weapon, will not kill, will only eat pizza hut...........
and they will accept this???

please wake up.

i'm gonna go right now and add a signing statement, to my car ins..
that if i ever get into an accident, weather it is my fault or not,
that i automatically get a NEW CAR and 1 MILLION DOLLARS.......

its a STATEMENT,,,,, NOT i repeat NOT, part of the contract!!!!

he automatically AGREED TO IT , by signing it....



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeah right

and quickly had a REPUBLICAN sue him in the SUPREME COURT
that way the republican lawyers can SCREW IT UP and case gets thrown out
(makes the republicans LOOK LIKE they really care too)


Bush and Specter are both "Republicans" in a very loose sense. These two guys couldn't be any more different without being completely different species.

If you evet watched any of the Senate confirmation hearing for SCOTUS over the past 20 years, Specter's been one of the most adversarial senators towards Republican nominees.

Just sayin'.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
"yeah right", pay attention now, I’m repeating this for a reason. Signing Statements have no legal backing, as such they are not (nor can they be considered) added on legislation, they are just a President’s views about that law. So there is nothing "unconstitutional" about them. Now, if a President broke that law and tried to use his Signing Statement as his legal backing then you have yourself a case, can any of you provide me with a clear case of Bush doing this? Ok then, if not, end of non-issue.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Westpoint: Thanks. I was just going to respond to Yeah Right, but you wrote pretty much what I ws going to explain. In fact, I said much the same thing in a previous post, but he must not have seen it.

You have to remember that it's futile to argue because some people are confused when they are confronted with facts that differ from their beliefs. Way too many people here use the forums to expound on their views and beliefs, rather than use all of the info provided to make an informed decision.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Again, for example, the Torture Bill. President Bush signed it, but reserved the right in his signing statement to ignore it if he felt the need to do so. The signing statement was used in this case to impart the President's latent intent to break the very law he was signing. Again using national security concerns to invoke the mantle of secrecy afforded him by this (emerging international hoax of a) war on terror.

Is it so hard to see the circular nature of the logic employed here to perpetuate this conflict and attempt to justify more disproportionate sacrifices of lives and resources on the part of the many in favor of the few?

By their fruits ye shall know them



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join