White House Declares Judicial Power

[JMHX]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Article Tools

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Full Story

--

Why is it I feel just saying "That's incredibly unconstitutional" isn't going to be enough to convince some people?

[LadyGrace]

At 5/1/06 03:26 PM, JMHX wrote: Why is it I feel just saying "That's incredibly unconstitutional" isn't going to be enough to convince some people?

Because no governmental insitutions follow the Constitution anymore. Just ask the Federal Government.

[JMHX]

I wonder if it even matters any longer.

[HighlyIllogical]

It's a bit excessive to say that it's a facist state, but when one party controls both houses of congress, the White House, and some would argue, the Supreme Court, there's going to be little opposition to anything that gets done.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/1/06 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote: I wonder if it even matters any longer.

Obviously it doesn't, since you claim that the power to ignore laws is "judicial power," when they don't even have that power.

This power is not unconstitutional; Bush has all the power in the world to ignore laws by not signing them into law. But if he signs them into law, he is legally required to follow them.

The White House wants to avoid the controversy of vetoing a bill, but also wants to not follow provisions that they don't like. But they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Anyway, what was your point?

[JMHX]

He's disregarding existing laws according to his interpretation of the Constitution.

He can't interpret the Constitution. That's Judicial.

[HighlyIllogical]

True, quite true. However, there's little recourse available to those of us who uphold the constitution.

[TehChahlesh]

At 5/1/06 04:09 PM, mofomojo wrote:
From the looks of it from up here, the United States is slowly being graded down into a fascist state. Didn't Hitler have judicial authority as well?

Haven;t you people been saying that for the last 6 years? Wasn;'t Hitler also a genocidal phsycopath? Wasn't Germany also in economic ruin and willing to let anyone be in power who could fix that? I hate people who act like they're freedom fighters in a dictatorship. See, when your constitutional rights are removed, remember, yours, then you can safely assume that we're a facist state. But that's never going to happen.

[JMHX]

At 5/1/06 04:44 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 5/1/06 04:09 PM, mofomojo wrote:
See, when your constitutional rights are removed, remember, yours, then you can safely assume that we're a facist state.

When your Constitutional rights are removed, you can't safely do anything.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/1/06 04:38 PM, JMHX wrote: He's disregarding existing laws according to his interpretation of the Constitution.

He can't interpret the Constitution. That's Judicial.

Not according to his interpretation of the Constitution. Seems to me there is a definite problem with interpretation.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/1/06 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Not according to his interpretation of the Constitution. Seems to me there is a definite problem with interpretation.

Ergo, bush is an idiot. Marbury v. Madison states that the Supreme Court can review federal statutes and interperets the constitution.

[JMHX]

At 5/1/06 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 5/1/06 04:38 PM, JMHX wrote: He's disregarding existing laws according to his interpretation of the Constitution.

He can't interpret the Constitution. That's Judicial.

Not according to his interpretation of the Constitution. Seems to me there is a definite problem with interpretation.

The Constitution says VERY CLEARLY

Judicial interprets law
Executive executes law
Legislative creates law

Each is individual and equal.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/1/06 04:59 PM, JMHX wrote:

Each is individual and equal.

Well, yeah, but the Judiciary is the most powerful-it can reverse ANYONE'S decision and call into question anyone's actions.

[No-one-inparticular]

Which Affirmative actions provisions is Bush attempting to overturn?

[LazyDrunk]

At 5/1/06 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 5/1/06 04:38 PM, JMHX wrote: He's disregarding existing laws according to his interpretation of the Constitution.

He can't interpret the Constitution. That's Judicial.

Not according to his interpretation of the Constitution. Seems to me there is a definite problem with interpretation.

LOL LETS ALL FILIBUSTER JOHN ROBERTS!!!!!1

Self-proclaimed democrats make me smile. Anyone want to start a raging awesome party?

[No-one-inparticular]

At 5/1/06 06:05 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote

Self-proclaimed democrats make me smile. Anyone want to start a raging awesome party?

Conservative Democrat doesn't have to be a contradiction in terms, Drunk.

[LazyDrunk]

At 5/1/06 06:09 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote: At 5/1/06 06:05 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote

Self-proclaimed democrats make me smile. Anyone want to start a raging awesome party?

Conservative Democrat doesn't have to be a contradiction in terms, Drunk.

Why side with a loser who wants to keep on losing? What are democrats doing to change their political face? Nothing?

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/1/06 06:14 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Why side with a loser who wants to keep on losing?

Because we've got a great chance of winning next time around, and because we adhere to real American values.

[LazyDrunk]

At 5/1/06 06:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 5/1/06 06:14 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Why side with a loser who wants to keep on losing?

because we adhere to real American values.

Like what? Enlighten me to the american values democrats actually care for.

[LordDarlington]

At 5/1/06 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 5/1/06 04:38 PM, JMHX wrote: He's disregarding existing laws according to his interpretation of the Constitution.

He can't interpret the Constitution. That's Judicial.

Not according to his interpretation of the Constitution. Seems to me there is a definite problem with interpretation.

No, there's absolutely no paradox here. The Constitution as clearly as language can possibly allow states that the power to interpret the Constitution lay with the Supreme Court.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Unless the President considers himself to literally be a part of the Judicial branch I can't see how he's claiming that what he's doing is Constitutional.

Well, yeah, but the Judiciary is the most powerful-it can reverse ANYONE'S decision and call into question anyone's actions.

Ah ah, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by amendments to the Constitution. Their word isn't final. ;-)

What are democrats doing to change their political face? Nothing?

Nominating the same people - either literally or in different bodies - not learning from their mistakes, continuing to alienate their base, becoming more adversarial rather than turning around for a unity ticket, etc.

Oh wai-

Because we've got a great chance of winning next time around, and because we adhere to real American values.

You had a chance of winning the last two times around, too, and you screwed those up pretty bad. Maybe you should, you know, stop pushing further and further away from the liberal base and stop outright assuming that red states have to remain red. People warm to candidates that, rather than trying to appease everyone, try to stand up for what they believe in. That's why Bush got re-elected. It's not necessarily the issues that they agree on but the assurances of progress being made and taking a step away from the ongoing traditional practice of corrupt politicians slinging mud rather than achieving things.

[JMHX]

This isn't a discussion about Democrats. This is supposed to be a discussion about the very disturbing article.

[LordDarlington]

At 5/1/06 07:04 PM, JMHX wrote: This isn't a discussion about Democrats. This is supposed to be a discussion about the very disturbing article.

Let's all peacably assemble for a redress of greivances!

Unfortunately, the administration has taken a policy of nondisclosure so we have absolutely no idea what he's doing - after all, the Constitution says it's not legal for him to report his actions to Congress. RIGHT?

[JMHX]

At 5/1/06 07:11 PM, -Michael- wrote: He's doing this to protect us from ourselves.

It's better to post nothing at all than the nonsense you usually do.

[LordDarlington]

At 5/1/06 07:11 PM, -Michael- wrote: He's doing this to protect us from ourselves.

WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/1/06 06:20 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Like what? Enlighten me to the american values democrats actually care for.

Hard work for fair pay, for one. And political freedom for all.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/1/06 07:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 5/1/06 06:20 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Hard work for fair pay, for one.

Then tax the shit out of them would finish the democratic montra.

and i'm pretty sure both parties are for political freedom.

[Politics]

It really legitimately worries me when Bush makes a move towards totalitarianism like that.

And where's the part about him being able to shit on the constitution? I know he can veto bills by congress, but the part about him upholding the constitution to the best of his ability is in there, too. Even the parts that he doesn't like. Scary.

[MegalomaniacVirus]

Zig heil

[Demosthenez]

This is messed up. But I see it no more or less messed up than our current reading of the Constitution is. The goverment has so many power never enumerated in the Constitution or even close to implied it is rather sickening. I mean, if we want to nitpick about it, I think the framers would be incredibly suprised at the state of American goverment if they ever saw it today. Its a behemoth.

A corrupt, uncontrolable behemoth.

At 5/1/06 10:13 PM, mofomojo wrote: I think. . .

Yeah, you also think America is turning into a fascist state. Were glad we have your expert assesment.

At 5/1/06 06:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Because we've got a great chance of winning next time around, and because we adhere to real American values.

Oh yeah, the real America values are babying our population and buying votes with social programs.

Right.

At 5/1/06 04:09 PM, mofomojo wrote: From the looks of it from up here, the United States is slowly being graded down into a fascist state. Didn't Hitler have judicial authority as well?

Yeah, we will see how well America turning into a fascist state works.

You will be the first to know if it happens. As if anyone would let it happen.

You see, that is the problem with the rest of you fools from the rest of the world. The USA is not going to turn into a fascist state and your statements that it will show incredible pigheadedness and arrogance. Like shit America can turn fascist with Bush having an approval rating of 30%. Right, mofo, your logic is impeccable, you reactionary tool.

[JoS]

Why do I get the feeling Bush failed his cours eon the American political system at his Ivy-League school?

Howver, Bush is nto an idiot like most are suggesting. This is actually a very brillant plan he is doing. Why is it brillant? Because nobody is giving a shit. Clinton impeeched over a blow-job. Nixion gets hell for spying on political rivals. Bush has successfully spyed on Americans, sanctioned torture and taken over the roles of both Congress and the courts himself and not a word.