Bush decides which laws he follows
 

it's a long read, but if you love your country, you should

Bush challenges hundreds of laws:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...aws/?page=full

Bush basically makes the system of checks and balances non existent

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ing_statements

Examples of the president's signing statements
April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws GLOBE GRAPHIC: Number of new statutes challenged
Examples of the president's signing statements

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

SOURCE: Charlie Savage

this info is hard to bear.
THe thing that i understand is that a great job is going on.

These are not the actions of an Idiot!

This is the action of a power hungry monster. Perhaps all those stupid public appearances are just to keep people looking the opposite way.

either way he's a dick

looks like he is going to control everything and not only in US

and all of this suprises you............................ how?

:disgust

well he is the decider after all

ain't that the way a Reich works ???

Bush thinks he's part of the Q continuum?

All hail the omnipotent fuhrer.

Who'd have thunk - a redneck tyrant.

I think it's more like he has his countries mixed up. Spending all that time with Blair, he's King Bush.

:1orglaugh

hes a power hungry tyrant, and there is a network of just as bad people behind him.

he's not at that level yet, but he's certainly on his way to become a dictator, if he keeps this up, makes me think of a stupider version of the chancelor in V For Vendetta

well, than he again wouldn't have paid attention: in the UK, like in most countries, the Head of State (Queen, other countries have a president) and the Head of Government (Prime Minister Blair) are 2 different people and normally a Head of Government can't get away with pulling that much shit, because he would have to resign after 1 or 2 mishaps.

Exceptions on the rule: Putin and Berlusconi

keep finding it so dangerous that Head of State and Government are the same person, leaves the way open too easy for dictatorial outcrops.

By issuing signing statements President Bush is not doing anything that most if not all previous Presidents have done and that is to protect the office of the Presidency.

The Presidency is not bound by congressional law if said law infringes upon the powers granted to the Presidency via the constitution unless or until the Supreme Court decides that said law is within the powers of Congress and makes a legal decision that the President is required to abide by said law.

It is rather simple. If Congress concludes that a President must abide by a law enacted by Congress it can always sue before the Supreme Court for a legal decision by the Supreme Court.

once you realize the string pulling that powers that agenda is much bigger the W could ever config..you start to see some truth..ugly truth..

Bush is writing laws in Prague???


TheMaster
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgian in Prague
Posts: 1,019

The warchowsky brothers who wrote the script and made the movie (also responsbile for the matrix trilogy) were trying to suggest that the current modus operandi of western goverments and multination companies is akin to 1984, and reich-esk law. Hence the portrayal of Joh Hurt (lead in 1984) as the chancellor.

The vendetta is representative of the vox populi growing to rebel, and take control i.e. revolution.

Thats my take.

In the US system of government the President is not the head of Government. The President is the head of the executive branch of Government which is one of the three branches of Government. The President actually has very limited domestic powers but the Constitution grants the President virtually unlimited power in foreign policy, national security, and the use of the military as he is the Commander in Chief of the military.

IMPEACH the motherfucker!!!!!!!



http://www.democracyformo.com/galler...r_2_edited.jpg

is there ANYTHING Bush could do that you wouldn't defend?

For the violation of what law?

Yup, exactly.

It's apparently not well known that the things that Bush does, that are protrayed as SO terrible, are things that all other presidents, including the beloved Clinton, have done before him, (yes, even starting a war that was not sanctioned by the UN and with a country that was not a threat to the US). It's really weird how short people's memory and knowledge extend. They get so sucked in by what the media tells them, and seem to be unable to research anything that does not agree with their pre-held beliefs

I do not consider myself to be a defender of President Bush and, or his policies, but I do recognize that a President is provided via the constitution the legal right to make policy as long as it is not in violation of law and as of this point in time no court has determined that this President has violated US law nor has the House. Every President in previous history has been provided the same constitutional powers as the current President until and unless the House or the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The people have the power of the vote and the Congress has the power to sue in Court or the House has the power to impeach. Only the people have exercised their power.

The constitution.

The founding fathers didn't trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?

President Bush does not have unlimited power and as of this point in time the House and the Court has not ruled that the President has violated any US law or the Constitution.

bush is a fucking moron.........

http://www.cfhf.net/lyrics/images/george.jpg
Watch out for that....
IRAQI

have you even read the article?

Bush seems to also put aside decisions by the Supreme Court

1. what's your point?
2. if US officials keep proclaiming that they're the greatest democracy on the planet, than you should expect a critical eye from the rest of the world
3. what those people do, affects the rest of the world as well
4. that was the weakest reply in this thread and kind of makes me think you don't know what to do when you're confronted with the truth

again, have you read the article, how Bush does it much much much more and in a more pervasive way

why do you think that is? maybe read the article, because all your points are countered in the article

The problem with that statement (and Ive noticed every Republican commentator using that line of reasoning in the last few days) is that there is a huge difference between the number of signing statements Bush has produced (over 600) that in some cases do put aside Supreme Court rulings and Congress - including the ability to use that suing power you speak of, and what all previous presidents have done. Until the 1980s (Reagan) there was no use of signing statements at all - the veto was used per the constitution, as it gave Congress a recourse of action. The signing statement circumvents that recourse action by congress.
Bush has not vetoed a single bill out of congress - although he has made quite a few not even worth the paper they were written on by using this system.
You cant have it both ways - either support Bush and his underhanded ways of doing things unpatriotically and outside the confines of the constitution - or you can use your civic power to vote the Republicans out of power this year - since a few states have already started the impeachment articles, congress will have to take action before Bush leaves the presidency.

btw for a good laugh, go to http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/
to videos for The White House Correspondents' Dinner, where Stephen Colbert humiliates Bush

I'm rather baffled...

Bush has demonstrated time and time again his absolute disdain and hatred towards the adult entertainment industry - and has gone to great lengths with his administration to drive as many of us out of business as possible during his terms in office.

And yet, here on one of the largest and most influential adult webmaster forums on the web - we still have people coming to Bush's defense.

How can someone possibly be in the adult entertainment industry, witness their civil liberties and very livelihood sliding farther and farther down the shitter on a daily basis - yet still sing the praises of GWB?

Or is this simply a division between us webmasters...and the naive surfers who simply don't know any better?

Its very much perplexing.

that and being one of the stupidest things to ever breath and walk on two feet. He's not only an insult to the oval office, but an insult to the human kind. He cant speak, he hasnt done a single good thing for this country since his whole term, fuckkkkkk i could go on and on and fuckin on some more. But whats the point? NOTHING i say can change the fact that we have a real life idiot as a president. A true idiot.

We declared war when Clinton was President? Against who?

S Moby - its no use :) theyre just repeating what they hear on TV when the commentators get riled up and have no real concept or knowledge of history - nor do they have any interest in learning American history for some reason???

Have a link for that? Id love to see it.