Jump to content


Photo

How Bush 'vetos' Without Vetoing By 'signing Statements.&#


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 pug_ster

pug_ster

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 25 July 2006 - 05:21 PM

I'm sure that many of you heard in the news that it was the first time that Bush offically vetoed a bill about stem cell research during his term in office. Many of you probably thought that this was no fanfare but I always thought how does Bush dodged many scandals from Scooter Libby, Gitzmo, Spying on Americans, etc... from being an issue raised by congress or senate. There were talks of investigations of these matters but you never see much of it and it makes me wonder why. And then today's news about Spector suing the President over 'signing statements' makes sense.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14020234/

Upon googling this subject and Bush and there's a more detailed article of how Bush got his way sidestepping congress for the past few years without vetoing.

http://writ.news.fin...n/20060113.html

Interesting read.

#2 throwingks

throwingks

    X-S Freak

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v4.0 (jasper)

Posted 25 July 2006 - 07:05 PM

Bush is a moron that does smart things only for his best interest.

There is no reason to not have stem cell research. Religious beliefs are stupid when it comes to politics. People are dying because he wont let research happen. Other countries that do are saving lives and curing paralysis. Hey Bush, figure it out. We are losing the scientific field supremacy we once had.

#3 pug_ster

pug_ster

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 25 July 2006 - 08:03 PM

I don't think many of his constituents know what kind of President they voted for. All Bush did was that he suppressed the issues like Civil Liberities, Torture in Gitzmo, and Valerie Plume from coming into light. When Bush is out of the office, the congress and senate will bring these issues to light, and start investigations. History will judge himself, issues like signing statements, iraq and Lebanon will tell what kind of phony this guy is.

#4 jha'dhur

jha'dhur

    X-S Young Member

  • XS-BANNED
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.6
  • 360 version:none

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jul 25 2006, 02:12 PM) View Post

Bush is a moron that does smart things only for his best interest.

There is no reason to not have stem cell research. Religious beliefs are stupid when it comes to politics. People are dying because he wont let research happen. Other countries that do are saving lives and curing paralysis. Hey Bush, figure it out. We are losing the scientific field supremacy we once had.


I cant believe im defending Bush but he has allowed stem cell research in some cases.

The stickler with this bill was gov't funding of private research.

Corporate Welfare

#5 pug_ster

pug_ster

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 July 2006 - 08:00 PM

The reason why the American Bar Association brought this foward was that because this excessive use of signing statements is really an abuse of Executive Power over the Legistative or Judical Branch.

Take wiki's article about signing statements:

http://en.wikipedia....gning_statement

For example, in one instance where McCain, a member of senate want to propose a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Bush used signed statement nullifying the bill and their statement:

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.

Because of that, McCain cannot introduce a bill about the torture ban. This is clearly an example of of how the Executive Power overstepping the Legistative branch. The only thing that McCain can do is complain to the news media about it.

Edited by pug_ster, 27 July 2006 - 08:13 PM.


#6 lordvader129

lordvader129

    He Who Posts Alot...

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, USA
  • Xbox Version:v1.1
  • 360 version:v5.0 (360S - trinity)

Posted 27 July 2006 - 09:01 PM

theres always checks and balances though, the judicial or legeislative branches can overturn that if they really disagreed with it

#7 pug_ster

pug_ster

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 July 2006 - 09:47 PM

There is no checks and balance in this case. If there was checks and balances, the bill would've been debated, voted on. If the bill has majority support, it gets signed and given to Bush to veto it or not. This bill got shot down before it was able to do any of that.

#8 lordvader129

lordvader129

    He Who Posts Alot...

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, USA
  • Xbox Version:v1.1
  • 360 version:v5.0 (360S - trinity)

Posted 27 July 2006 - 10:02 PM

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jul 27 2006, 04:54 PM) View Post
There is no checks and balance in this case. If there was checks and balances, the bill would've been debated, voted on. If the bill has majority support, it gets signed and given to Bush to veto it or not. This bill got shot down before it was able to do any of that.


congress could propose a bill to do away with signing statements, if bush vetoes it, they override his veto, if the supreme court calls it unconstitutional, they amend the constitution



congress hold ALL the power in the US, the only thing keeping that in check is that they never agree on anything



#9 pug_ster

pug_ster

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 28 July 2006 - 02:14 AM

That is why Senator Spector is suing the Bush over signing statements. Perhaps if they bring the case to the supreme court, they will listen. Then again, it was Samual Alito 20 years ago then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Go figure.

#10 lordvader129

lordvader129

    He Who Posts Alot...

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, USA
  • Xbox Version:v1.1
  • 360 version:v5.0 (360S - trinity)

Posted 28 July 2006 - 02:18 AM

so if theres no checks and balances for signing statements, how is he able to sue over them? sounds like a balance to me



#11 nagmine

nagmine

    burp!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.1
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 28 July 2006 - 02:22 AM

I got an idea.. donate some money to embronic stem cell research and walla its all better they have thier money and can do what they wish. Now for the rest of us who dont want our tax dollars going to what we do not consider moral we have a choice not to and you have a choice to donate.

Im not a big fan of bush.. but ma atleast he did one thing right.

Edited by nagmine, 28 July 2006 - 02:23 AM.


#12 pug_ster

pug_ster

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 28 July 2006 - 02:44 AM

Unless some kind of miracle happens, I doubt that this issue will be solved while Bush is president. Perhaps there will be something done in the next term.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users