Now we have King George in the USA..proof

http://www.kare11.com/news/national/national_article.aspx?storyid=128050

Sen. John McCain thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees.

Not quite.

While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is opening hearings this week into what has become the White House's favorite tool for overriding Congress in the name of wartime national security.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," the committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge more than 750 statutes passed by Congress, far more than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that number, but points out that Bush is far from the nation's first chief executive to issue them.

<snip>

And, btw, in the spirit of fairness, we should outlaw EO's and further clarify the President's role. We should also outlaw these BS signing statements. The President must execute the law as Congress dictates. Nowhere in the Constitution's Article II does it give the President the ability to make laws. That power is reserved to Congress in Article I:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

These signing statements cannot be likened to executive orders. He is reserving the right to himself, to do what he wants to.

lets see what wikipedia has to say about this shall we?

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[2] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges. [3]

A November 3, 1993 memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.[1]
Signing statements may be viewed as a type of executive order without congressional (democratic) oversight. Other types of executive order are, national security directives, homeland security presidential directives, and presidential decision directives, all of which deal with national security and defense matters.

and another quote direct from your wikipedia

One of the signing statements which has attracted most controversy is the signing of the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody:

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
Some critics note that this statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law. As a result, it is argued, the President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban", effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

now I ask again, whats your point?

When I say decided by the Supreme Court, I mean a direct challenge to signing statements. The way Bush uses signing statements is to inflate his power excessively. Again, my position is that signing statements and Executive Orders need to be struck down as illegal. A memo from the President on executing the Congressionally-passed law is fine with me, but anything that goes beyond the law (as some Executive Orders and signing statements do) needs to be declared illegal by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Again, in the spirit of fairness, the Executive Order that Clinton used for Kosovo was wrong. I'm all about fairness, both for Republicans and Democrats and others. I'm no Clinton worshipper and I"m surely no Bush worshipper.

Good grief, Flavian. Who is it exactly you accuse of the 9/11 atrocities? The Afgan people?

The American/Allied assault in the Middle East has so far killed, at conservative estimates, 38,000 civilians.

I agree to a point, executive orders classify everything from EPA regulations to Kosovo. I think that some are ok, however there need to be boundaries to them.

My point to you this whole time is, why is it suddenly an outrage when Bush uses them? Did you scream about them before Bush? Did you even know what they were before Bush?

Clinton's line item veto was legal. It was voted by the Congress. The Supreme Court took it away.


What Dictator George the idoit is doing is saying, "Yes I am signing this law but I don't have to obey it."

Thats wrong

Thats Impeachable

And its highly treasonous, dis-honorable and criminal.

thanks for adding nothing to this thread, now you do realize that Congress was Republican at the time right? and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so it was legal how?

Almost all the Governors of the States have Line-Item Veto. They use it to strip Pork- Spending from bills. This spending that the Governors strip is meaningless to the bill. President WIlliam Jefferson Clinton used it to strip pork Spending from bills until the Supreme Court took it away unconstitutionally.

wow can you be anymore annoying? your RL name isn't Monica is it?

[Post removed ]

do us all a favor, pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow.

No its not

And I cleaned up my post. Hope your happy.

Oh, you prefer the other spelling. I'm sorry. I might piss of the terrorist some more. We can't have that. I better fix it.

King George created the war on terror so that Republicans and himself would get re-elected.

Yeah i havnt been following this topic because I tend to stay away from anything that mentions the B word. (Bush) because it attracts the most hateful and closed minded individuals who keeping saying outrageous things about our President and refusing to even consider the idea that they might be wrong.

All im gonna say for now is that President George W. Bush will be remembered by History as a President who stood his ground against unbelievable opposition and controversy. He led his country through the tragic day of 9-11. His greatest moment will be that time he had the megaphone in New York and promised to get back at those who had attacked us. He fufilled that promised by attacking Al-qaeda in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The President of the United States of America is supposed to stick to his own values because that is why the majority of Americans voted for him. The President should not change his position constantly based on polls or the ever shifting public opinion. He should be firm, patriotic, and convicted. For those reasons and many others, George W. Bush will be remembered by History as a much better President than say...Bill Clinton.

And another thing. I know that someone is going to reply to this saying that I am insane and what not but let me tell you something. The Democrats would be right if it were not for a simple thing called reality. In reality: Al-qaeda is and was in Iraq, in reality Bush really doesnt care about tracing your phone calls to your mother, in reality the terrorist are hell bent on destroying us even if we left them completely alone. The Bush-haters of today are the most hateful individuals in the country and hating anyone that much cannot be healthy.

Now Im just gonna sit back and wait for the "YOUR OUT OF YOUR MIND" replies to roll in...

*CHEERS WILDLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* finally a fellow sane person

Al-Qaeda...does anyone actually know what that means? I imagine not, and if so I'm sure your respective governments would love to be in on the secret.

Al-Qaeda, or atleast the shadowy threat that we like to call that, is in America - point of fact, 9/11. It is in Great Britain - point of fact, the bombings last summer. It is everywhere. Quite probably are also elements in Afganistan, and even Iraq, but I know something - nobody knows where, and nobody is likely to find them.

38000 civilians in Afganistan and Iraq have so far been killed in the American lead invasions of those countries. Men, women and children, indiscriminately. Indiscriminately. Afganistan has been left once again with no discernable infracture, and Iraq has been reduced to a state of abject civil war.

Elinea, there is not a scrap of evidence to say any of this carnage has created a safer environment for anyone.

Im sorry I didnt know there has been another terrorist attack in the United States since 9-11. Heh I must not have heard about it sorry.

Im sorry to burst your little hobby of making America look like the most evil country on Earth who kills civilians indescrimanetly but you know in War crap happens so get over it.

And a final note about Afghanistan and Im almost sad to have to say this but... Afghanistan has no major economic advantages and quite honestly even in an ideal sitaution Afghanistan really could not aspire to be much more than a second world country.

A stable Government in Afghanistan would be prefered to chaos because chaos breeds anger, anger breeds hate, and hate breeds Terrorists (or Liberals in America's case). The easiest way to get rid of terrorism in an area is to make sure that there is stability but one way or another there will always be some people who are un-happy with the state of things so it is impossible to please everyone...unless of course you are God.

What evidence is there to suggest that there will not be one, Elinea? These are people that work on a different timescale. You did, I imagine, hear about the terrorist attack on London less than a year ago? Is this not evidence enough that whatever Al-Qaeda is (and do you know?) is quite capable striking?

"In War crap happens"? Do you feel at war with the Iraqi and Afghan civilians? Where is your evidence to suggest they had anything to do with 9/11? Bush has none, Blair has none.

They had nothing to do with it. This war, illegal in the eyes of the United Nations, leaves innocent blood on the hands of all of us that did nothing or little to prevent it.

"Hate breeds Terrorists...and Liberals" What is a terrorist, Elinea? Do you know that? If it is defined by those attacks on New York, it can similarly be defined by the "shock and awe" unleashed upon Baghdad in the opening stages of the invasion.

And Afghanistan can only aspire to being a second world country, can it? Well, there is not time here to discuss that country's venerable history.

There is nothing to be done when the aggression and greed of nations is bouyed by its people's vitriol.



38000 civilians dead. Over ten times the number that perished on 9/11.

It's not unfounded at all. And of course I read it.

a well documented bit of fakery.

You act like the U.S. is carpet bombing Afghanistan. It's a low intensity conflict compared to military activities in Iraq.

What makes you think Afghanistan has anything to do with Iraq or are you saying 38k civilians have been killed in Afghanistan?


(edit: typos)

Speaks the truth AND uses spell check.

I do believe I am in love with you now.

I understand that this is not publicised, Flavian, but infact I hear that the US forces are literally carpet bombing entire stretches of the Afghan mountains. My source is an officer in the RAF. This they do in response to being frustrated by guerilla warfare being waged by factions loyal to the Taliban in the region. The regions in question are sparsely, but definately, populated.

That there is a full ground war being faught in Afghanistan there is no secret. The casualties are by no means at the levels of those in Iraq, and you are right, I include both Iraqi and Afghan figures into that conservative, and horrific, estimate.

An investigation. I need one. You should too. Just because an organization supposedly takes resonsibility does not remove obligation to the original victims to investigate the original murders and discover what really happened.