|
ABA: Bush violating Constitution
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: | ABA: Bush violating Constitution
Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.
ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.
The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.
Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.
"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."
Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."
The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.
The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07...h.ap/index.html |
Its so amazing how many people are willing to jump up and criticize but so few are willing to actually go out and do something about it. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Its so amazing how many people are willing to jump up and criticize but so few are willing to actually go out and do something about it. |
thats because the ABA basically said that Buler is "violating the Constitution" more than previous Presidents have.
who's gonna fight for that? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | | The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii. |
f**kin lawyers.
oh man, the hookers in Waikiki are gettin the bills paid next month thats for damn straight! |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
thats because the ABA basically said that Buler is "violating the Constitution" more than previous Presidents have.
who's gonna fight for that? |
well considering it said Bush has had 800 signing statements, more than every single other president in history combined (600). thats just a flamboyant disregard for the law.
Bush is going down, I'll bet you, when you have the ABA on your ass theres no help left, this guy is going to burn |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
well considering it said Bush has had 800 signing statements, more than every single other president in history combined (600). thats just a flamboyant disregard for the law.
Bush is going down, I'll bet you, when you have the ABA on your ass theres no help left, this guy is going to burn |
so...what is it? is it OK to "violate the Constitution" a little bit?
or does the ABA set a standard of number of violations?
who the hell cares what the ABA says anyway. what are they gonna do dis-BAR him?
how is he "goin down"? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
well considering it said Bush has had 800 signing statements, more than every single other president in history combined (600). thats just a flamboyant disregard for the law.
Bush is going down, I'll bet you, when you have the ABA on your ass theres no help left, this guy is going to burn |
lets note, shall we, that in the first paragragh of the introduction of the ABA report we see that they have quoted a leading news article that states "has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” when, in fact, we learn on p.14 in the footnotes that the said article misrepresents and the report corrects; “It is important to understand that these numbers refer to the number of challenges to provisions of laws rather than to the number of signing statements”.
this is more shoddy, political hackery that will "go down" as un-noticed as Valerie Plame's new book. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
lets note, shall we, that in the first paragragh of the introduction of the ABA report we see that they have quoted a leading news article that states "has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” when, in fact, we learn on p.14 in the footnotes that the said article misrepresents and the report corrects; “It is important to understand that these numbers refer to the number of challenges to provisions of laws rather than to the number of signing statements”.
this is more shoddy, political hackery that will "go down" as un-noticed as Valerie Plame's new book. |
Dude give me a break. Did you actually read the report or are you pulling select tidbits from whatever blog you subscribe to?
If you read the report the context becomes clear. The article cites several controversial claims that were quoted by media sources and then the ABA proceeded to establish a task force to examine such claims:
"In light of the importance of these issues, ABA President Michael S. Greco appointed an ABA task force on Presidiential Signing Statemetns and the Separation of Powers Doctine to 'examine the changing role of presidential signing statements, in which the US presidents articulate their views of provisions in newly enacted laws, attaching statements to the new legislation before forwarding it to the Federal Registrar" and to "consider whether such statements conflict with express statutory language or congressional intent." [This references the statement you quoted]
The ABA proceeded to compare Bush 2 against other Presidents within the context of challenges to provisions of laws rather than the number of signing statements ... all with footnote statement of fact. I don't understand how this document from a legal entity such as the ABA can be deliberatly misleading in the slightest unless one is so retarded that they don't understand the concept of footnotes in a report. If that's the case please never ever read any supreme court ruling. What's next, physicists are attempting to mislead the public with their oh so confusing academic papers that have references? But by all means I'm sincerely interested in a thorough explanation of how the ABA was being deliberately obtuse or misleading in their report. And I'm afraid that a few quotes aren't going to cut it without the appropriate context and analysis.
Edit: Personally there's nothing I hate more than arguing against a statement a lawyer made much less the ABA, but if you think there's a valid argument against them ... by all means. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Dude give me a break. Did you actually read the report or are you pulling select tidbits from whatever blog you subscribe to?
If you read the report the context becomes clear. The article cites several controversial claims that were quoted by media sources and then the ABA proceeded to establish a task force to examine such claims:
"In light of the importance of these issues, ABA President Michael S. Greco appointed an ABA task force on Presidiential Signing Statemetns and the Separation of Powers Doctine to 'examine the changing role of presidential signing statements, in which the US presidents articulate their views of provisions in newly enacted laws, attaching statements to the new legislation before forwarding it to the Federal Registrar" and to "consider whether such statements conflict with express statutory language or congressional intent." [This references the statement you quoted]
The ABA proceeded to compare Bush 2 against other Presidents within the context of challenges to provisions of laws rather than the number of signing statements ... all with footnote statement of fact. I don't understand how this document from a legal entity such as the ABA can be deliberatly misleading in the slightest unless one is so retarded that they don't understand the concept of footnotes in a report. If that's the case please never ever read any supreme court ruling. What's next, physicists are attempting to mislead the public with their oh so confusing academic papers that have references? But by all means I'm sincerely interested in a thorough explanation of how the ABA was being deliberately obtuse or misleading in their report. And I'm afraid that a few quotes aren't going to cut it without the appropriate context and analysis. |
i said exactly what you said about the article Josh4 quotes as fact. (or similar article)
"the article misrepresents and the report corrects"
my contention, although i do believe the report is flawed, is that Josh4 misunderstands what signing statements and "the law" represent based on the article. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
f**kin lawyers.
oh man, the hookers in Waikiki are gettin the bills paid next month thats for damn straight! |
Just like the ones here in NYC got there's paid when the RNC was here in 2004. They had a field day and were booked solid from what I heard. Big conventions of wealthy people are a hooker's dream no matter where their party lines are drawn. |
|
|
| rustyryan |
| Regardless, I think more public outcry against violations of the constitution is probably a good thing, especially from organizations that hold some degree of clout, such as the ABA. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Just like the ones here in NYC got there's paid when the RNC was here in 2004. They had a field day and were booked solid from what I heard. Big conventions of wealthy people are a hooker's dream no matter where their party lines are drawn. |
i agree. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
so...what is it? is it OK to "violate the Constitution" a little bit?
or does the ABA set a standard of number of violations?
who the hell cares what the ABA says anyway. what are they gonna do dis-BAR him?
how is he "goin down"? |
LOL
You lose the game of life. |
|
|
|
|
