The Bush Presidency has had five years to show the American people what “Compassionate Conservatism” means. While the word compassionate may mean many things to different people, the word conservative, in the political sense, has a long-standing sense of reliance upon a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
How does this presidency rate against these guidelines?
President Bush is the only president since James Garfield to fail to use the veto power to nullify a law he does not accept. While this may be seen as an outcome due to the Congress and President being from the same party, President Bush has used a more sinister means to kill bills that does not allow Congress to override his veto, or provide any input towards a possible compromise.
Signing statements are not a new creation of this administration. None other than Samuel Alito proposed their use during the days of Reagan. Their purpose is to direct departments within the executive branch how to enact laws passed by Congress. In effect, if he disagrees with a law, such as banning torture, the signing statement can direct parts of the government to ignore the law. Thus far, President Bush has challenged laws passed by Congress over 600 times through this method. Compare this figure with the eight-year totals for Clinton (105 times) and Reagan (71 times).
Not since the “Trail of Tears” has such an egregious overstepping of the checks and balances our Founding Fathers installed in the Constitution been forced upon the American people.
This is not simply line item veto; such a power was declared unconstitutional in 1988. In that decision, the Court stated the president must either sign or veto a bill as a whole. Because Bush’s own Justice Department has been unwilling to investigate the Constitutional ramifications of these acts, and Congress has yet to act upon this usurpation of power, the final check against this breakdown within our government falls upon the Supreme Court, whose most recent nominee is Samuel Alito, originator of this crime.
These statements have put the President above the law that he has sworn to uphold. A manufactured war with no apparent end is no justification. His actions are not of a conservative nature; they are the steps of a man intent on gathering power for himself at the expense of the American people.
Noonan
Full Version: Bush's Signing Statements
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Original Essays, Research and Op-ed Pieces by Our members
QUOTE(Noonan @ Jan 20 2006, 05:09 PM)
The Bush Presidency has had five years to show the American people what “Compassionate Conservatism” means. While the word compassionate may mean many things to different people, the word conservative, in the political sense, has a long-standing sense of reliance upon a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
How does this presidency rate against these guidelines?
President Bush is the only president since James Garfield to fail to use the veto power to nullify a law he does not accept. While this may be seen as an outcome due to the Congress and President being from the same party, President Bush has used a more sinister means to kill bills that does not allow Congress to override his veto, or provide any input towards a possible compromise.
Signing statements are not a new creation of this administration. None other than Samuel Alito proposed their use during the days of Reagan. Their purpose is to direct departments within the executive branch how to enact laws passed by Congress. In effect, if he disagrees with a law, such as banning torture, the signing statement can direct parts of the government to ignore the law. Thus far, President Bush has challenged laws passed by Congress over 600 times through this method. Compare this figure with the eight-year totals for Clinton (105 times) and Reagan (71 times).
Not since the “Trail of Tears” has such an egregious overstepping of the checks and balances our Founding Fathers installed in the Constitution been forced upon the American people.
This is not simply line item veto; such a power was declared unconstitutional in 1988. In that decision, the Court stated the president must either sign or veto a bill as a whole. Because Bush’s own Justice Department has been unwilling to investigate the Constitutional ramifications of these acts, and Congress has yet to act upon this usurpation of power, the final check against this breakdown within our government falls upon the Supreme Court, whose most recent nominee is Samuel Alito, originator of this crime.
These statements have put the President above the law that he has sworn to uphold. A manufactured war with no apparent end is no justification. His actions are not of a conservative nature; they are the steps of a man intent on gathering power for himself at the expense of the American people.
Noonan
How does this presidency rate against these guidelines?
President Bush is the only president since James Garfield to fail to use the veto power to nullify a law he does not accept. While this may be seen as an outcome due to the Congress and President being from the same party, President Bush has used a more sinister means to kill bills that does not allow Congress to override his veto, or provide any input towards a possible compromise.
Signing statements are not a new creation of this administration. None other than Samuel Alito proposed their use during the days of Reagan. Their purpose is to direct departments within the executive branch how to enact laws passed by Congress. In effect, if he disagrees with a law, such as banning torture, the signing statement can direct parts of the government to ignore the law. Thus far, President Bush has challenged laws passed by Congress over 600 times through this method. Compare this figure with the eight-year totals for Clinton (105 times) and Reagan (71 times).
Not since the “Trail of Tears” has such an egregious overstepping of the checks and balances our Founding Fathers installed in the Constitution been forced upon the American people.
This is not simply line item veto; such a power was declared unconstitutional in 1988. In that decision, the Court stated the president must either sign or veto a bill as a whole. Because Bush’s own Justice Department has been unwilling to investigate the Constitutional ramifications of these acts, and Congress has yet to act upon this usurpation of power, the final check against this breakdown within our government falls upon the Supreme Court, whose most recent nominee is Samuel Alito, originator of this crime.
These statements have put the President above the law that he has sworn to uphold. A manufactured war with no apparent end is no justification. His actions are not of a conservative nature; they are the steps of a man intent on gathering power for himself at the expense of the American people.
Noonan
The president nullifies bills by signing them with a qualifying statements. He spies on the citizens without warrants using the excuse that we are at war. They blow up a sovereign country under the pretext that they had weapons and then occupies them under the pretext of bringing them democracy.
They claim that the Muslims hate us for our freedoms, so maybe this is a way of currying favor with the Muslim world - to get rid of our freedoms so they won't hate us anymore.
Great essay Noonan!
QUOTE
These statements have put the President above the law that he has sworn to uphold. A manufactured war with no apparent end is no justification. His actions are not of a conservative nature; they are the steps of a man intent on gathering power for himself at the expense of the American people.
But not just for himself.......for any president in the future. And the Bush administration is planning that ALL presidents from now on will be of 'compassionate conservative' ilk who are for sale to the highest bidder.
If they can get away with domestic spying, with tearing down the Constitution, it's not such a far reach to see that they are planning much farther ahead than the 3 years left in Bush's occupation.
It's obvious that all of the Republican and some of the Democrat officials of Congress, the Representatives and especially the Senate, are gutless wonders. They've stood by for five years letting the Bush administration rush down the path to a fascist dictatorship. These men and women are supposed to protect the rights of the people of their home states against the over-reaching of either the Supreme Court in laying down the law of the land and especially against the executive branch from stealing our freedoms by fiat. They have all failed miserably.
QUOTE(grammydidi @ Jan 29 2006, 08:01 AM)
But not just for himself.......for any president in the future. And the Bush administration is planning that ALL presidents from now on will be of 'compassionate conservative' ilk who are for sale to the highest bidder.
If they can get away with domestic spying, with tearing down the Constitution, it's not such a far reach to see that they are planning much farther ahead than the 3 years left in Bush's occupation.
It's obvious that all of the Republican and some of the Democrat officials of Congress, the Representatives and especially the Senate, are gutless wonders. They've stood by for five years letting the Bush administration rush down the path to a fascist dictatorship. These men and women are supposed to protect the rights of the people of their home states against the over-reaching of either the Supreme Court in laying down the law of the land and especially against the executive branch from stealing our freedoms by fiat. They have all failed miserably.
If they can get away with domestic spying, with tearing down the Constitution, it's not such a far reach to see that they are planning much farther ahead than the 3 years left in Bush's occupation.
It's obvious that all of the Republican and some of the Democrat officials of Congress, the Representatives and especially the Senate, are gutless wonders. They've stood by for five years letting the Bush administration rush down the path to a fascist dictatorship. These men and women are supposed to protect the rights of the people of their home states against the over-reaching of either the Supreme Court in laying down the law of the land and especially against the executive branch from stealing our freedoms by fiat. They have all failed miserably.
For all future presidents - exactly. Would Bush's have been happy if Clinton wielded this kind of power? Would they be happy if the next Democrat in office used this kind of power to investigate the 2000 and 2004 elections? And so on...
My original essay included all this, but I am limited to around 200 words (although many papers around here were generous and let this wordy one through). Thanks for reminding me of these topics, time to get writing once I get done with my papers today.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.