Reading an editorial, I found the winning arguement you can spring on any Bush supporter to make him change his mind. Follow the bouncing ball:
Since taking office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill passed by Congress, instead invoking "executive privelege as a wartime president" to write signing statements (750 of the things) gutting any bill he doesn't agree with or saying that they don't apply to him, including Congressional bills on torture, domestic wire-tapping, and executive secrecy necessary to fight the "war on terror".
Consider the "war on terror" is a war that doesn't theoretically ever "finish".
So, now we have precedent...now say Hillary Clinton or some other nefarious liberal takes the next Presidential election and becomes our next "war time president"?
If this doesn't scare conservatives into seriously upholding our Constitutional rights, I don't know what does.
Here you can search his signing statements by year, just select the year and type "signing statements". You can count them up yourself. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/search.html
2006-05-25T09:52:04Z
chslaw, I started reading through the signing statements starting with Clinton. Clinton did indeed "clarify the law" and re-stated what was required by him. Bush, by sharp contrast, has universally changed the laws in EVERY CASE to suit his needs, either to say the "law does not apply to him," or is "just a suggestion (taken under advisory)".
Before rejecting anything as bunk, take the time to read even a few examples in Bush's own words from the records site. This is NOT a partisan issue anymore, I'm sorry if my original question was posed that way. This is a very sick mind at work and NOBODY (mainstream press) seems to have even noticed. Bush has single-handedly turned our lawmakers into "suggestion makers" and any mention of judiciary oversight gets turned into "interference in the executive powers". He has also stripped every Bill of any kind of oversight by Congress. I originally asked the question half-joking, but this is so sickening I can't even think.
akemper982006-05-25T07:55:16Z
Favorite Answer
Doesn't work for conservatives because Bush isn't a conservative. Remember there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. Bush is a neocon Republican which is a liberal on spending and wants a one world government. I as a Conservative would prefer no impeachment but would like him out and a true Conservative in but no Hillery. I an hower afraid we may be on a downward spiral on all your issues regaurdless.
How does using signing statements in lieu of the veto correlate to ground for impeachment? Also the use of the signing statements has nothing to do with invoking powers under "executive privelege as a wartime president." The powers invoked pertained to warrantless wiretapping, not the ability to issue a signing statement. One could argue that the use of signing statements was a clever way to avoid the publicity of a veto, especially since most members of congress did not even know the President had used them until a congressional aid found a significant number during research for a bill. Upon further examination, it was determined that 750 such signing statements had been issued.
So far, reports on the NSA wire tapping program have received overwhelming support once it became clear that the calls in question were never recorded or listened to; rather, the routing information was examined. The American public is willing to accept secrecy pertaining to sources and methods in the pursuit of national security.
I fail to see how this article you have quoted will provide any support to a call for impeachment.
Where are you going with this? All but the stupidest Democrats don't even talk about impeachment of Bush. I'm not an avid Bush supporter. But impeachment as a solution to problems of todays government? Absurd!
You claim to have a winning argument to support impeachment of Bush. I'll offer this reason why it's absurd. IF you go through impeachment proceedings and succeed. How long would they take? And who would you have as President? Cheney. Who the radicals of the Democratic party say is the real problem. So you start the whole impeachment process again. How long would that take. And IF you succeed who would you get? Dennis Hasert. All this time the American people are getting more and more irritated at both parties for more reasons than I have time to list.
Now let's look at those reasons you have for impeachment.
Since taking office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill passed by Congress,
Where is it written a President HAS to veto something.- Nto an impeachable offence.
- instead invoking "executive privelege as a wartime president" to write signing statements (750 of the things) gutting any bill he doesn't agree with or saying that they don't apply to him,
You would have a hard time proving that isn't within the provence of President to do that. And you would have to debate every one of those 750 statements
- including Congressional bills on torture,
There would be so much debate on this topic alone as to what really constitutes torture since what is called torture doesn't include bamboo under the fingernails type torture.
- domestic wire-tapping,
The Democrats would get killed if they go there. You would have to prove intent to do harm, not just the possibility.
- and executive secrecy necessary to fight the "war on terror".
Another losing situation for Democrats. It is much easier to develop valid justifications for the secrecy than it is to make every thing the government is doing to stop terrorists known or even available to the general public.
- Consider the "war on terror" is a war that doesn't theoretically ever "finish".
Democrats have been backing a war on poverty since LBJ's time. Got a closing date on that 'war'?
Hillary is a red herring in the debate.
I'm more conservative than liberal, but definitly not hard core conservative. I'm more afraid of what the ACLU will do to MY Constitutional rights than I am of Bush or terrorists.
The problem with your entire hypothesis is that you are assuming the statements are true without any supporting evidence. The author makes the incredible claim that President Bush is has bee "overturning or revoking or ignoring of over 750 acts passed by Congress" with issuing a veto.
Oh really? How exactly is he doing this? What specific pieces of legislation has he ignored? Where are all the lawsuit that could be filed to compel him obey the law? The editorial is fully of statements unsupported by any evidence.
Even after reading the update to your question and looking at the links you provided, there is still no evidence to support the claims. Just because a Democrat says it is true doesn't make it true.
I read it against and STILL haven't found ANYTHING to support your claims. Provide specifics, not vague generalities.
Have to agree with #1. If any of those charges were in fact true, I might have to consider them.
But your take on signing statements is completely wrong. The purpose of signing statements is for clarity on what the bills mean. Because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, he is the one to be enacting the legislation, this is done to clarify his understanding of what course of action he will do.
If this were such a problem, the screaming whiners called Congressional Democrats would have been whining and puling for over 5 years now.