View all web results for BUSH
BREAKS LAW
Tue Jun 19, 2007 19:54
Bush Breaks The Law (How Many Times Are We Up To?)
Now the title of your post states “Bush Breaks The Law.” I do not think this is accurate. Please allow me to explain. In your fifth paragraph, ...
http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2006/03/bush-breaks-law-how-many-times-are-we.html
Specter: Let Bush Violate Law With Impunity
ARLEN SPECTER: LET BUSH BREAK THE LAW WITH IMPUNITY. Senator Says Bush May Have Committed Criminal Act But Shouldn't Be Punished. by Thomas J. Bico ...
http://www.moderateindependent.com/V4016206specter.htm
« View all web results for BUSH BREAKS LAW
RESULTS: BUSH BREAKS LAW
Bush skirts law with 'signing statements'
June 19, 2007 - 7:13am.
GAO report faults President
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2739
President George W. Bush breaks the law by failing to follow provisions of legislation passed by Congress and illegally modifies those bills through the use of "signing statements" that add his own interpretations or limitations.
That's the conclusion of an investigation by the General Accounting Office, an independent investigatory arm of Congress.
Administration critics say the report is another indication of how the Bush Administration ignores the law of the land.
Reports The Associated Press:
"Too often, the Bush administration does what it wants, no matter the law. It says what it wants, no matter the facts," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday. Byrd and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., requested the report.
Signing statements, in which the president appends bills he is signing into law with statements reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard provisions on national security and constitutional grounds, have become a major sticking point in the power struggle between Congress and the White House.
Conyers made signing statements the topic of his committee's first oversight hearing after Democrats took over control of Congress in January.
The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written.
In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.
The White House, in issuing the statements, has argued that the president has a right to control executive branch employees and officers, that he has authority to withhold from Congress information sometimes considered privileged or that Congress should not interfere with his constitutional role as commander in chief.
The GAO report, which did not assess the merits of the president's arguments, said signing statements go back at least to President Andrew Jackson, while citing other congressional studies that such statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan administration.
Byrd and Conyers said Bush has issued 149 signing statements, 127 of which raised some objection. They said the statements often raise multiple objections, resulting in more than 700 challenges to distinct provisions of law.
The GAO said signing statements accompanied 11 of the 12 spending bills in 2006, singling out 160 specific provisions in those bills.
The issue gained attention last year after Bush — after lengthy negotiations on renewal of the Patriot Act with language backed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that banned the torture of detainees — attached a signing statement in which he reserved the right to interpret that provision.
The White House defends the statements, saying presidents have the prerogative to address matters of national security and express reservations about the constitutionality of legislation.
"We expect to continue to use statements where appropriate, on a bill-by-bill basis," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "The opportunities in this Congress have been limited since we've mostly only received bills to name post offices and federal buildings."
The American Bar Association, at an annual meeting last year, approved a resolution condemning use of signing statements, saying presidents should not resort to diluting or changing laws passed by Congress rather than using their veto powers.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press
BUSH LIES U.S. INTO WAR.......
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/leakgate.htm
The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243
ENTER:
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
Did President Bush Break 26 Different Federal Laws And Regulations?
WHAT
Jonathan Turley, law professr at George Washington University and a recognized expert on constitutional law, says the ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Detroit raises "serious implications for the Bush administration" and indicates that the President "could well have committed a federal crime at least 30 times."
ACTION DO "WE THE PEOPLE HAVE, WHEN THE
PRESIDENT BREAKS "THE RULE OF LAW"....>>
HANG EM HIGH - grounds to impeach Bush, RoadsEnd
HANG 'EM HIGH...USE YOUR VOTE LIKE A ROPE
Now the title of your post states “Bush Breaks The Law.” I do not think this is accurate. Please allow me to explain. In your fifth paragraph, ...
http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2006/03/bush-breaks-law-how-many-times-are-we.html
Specter: Let Bush Violate Law With Impunity
ARLEN SPECTER: LET BUSH BREAK THE LAW WITH IMPUNITY. Senator Says Bush May Have Committed Criminal Act But Shouldn't Be Punished. by Thomas J. Bico ...
http://www.moderateindependent.com/V4016206specter.htm
« View all web results for BUSH BREAKS LAW
RESULTS: BUSH BREAKS LAW
Bush skirts law with 'signing statements'
June 19, 2007 - 7:13am.
GAO report faults President
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2739
President George W. Bush breaks the law by failing to follow provisions of legislation passed by Congress and illegally modifies those bills through the use of "signing statements" that add his own interpretations or limitations.
That's the conclusion of an investigation by the General Accounting Office, an independent investigatory arm of Congress.
Administration critics say the report is another indication of how the Bush Administration ignores the law of the land.
Reports The Associated Press:
"Too often, the Bush administration does what it wants, no matter the law. It says what it wants, no matter the facts," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday. Byrd and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., requested the report.
Signing statements, in which the president appends bills he is signing into law with statements reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard provisions on national security and constitutional grounds, have become a major sticking point in the power struggle between Congress and the White House.
Conyers made signing statements the topic of his committee's first oversight hearing after Democrats took over control of Congress in January.
The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written.
In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.
The White House, in issuing the statements, has argued that the president has a right to control executive branch employees and officers, that he has authority to withhold from Congress information sometimes considered privileged or that Congress should not interfere with his constitutional role as commander in chief.
The GAO report, which did not assess the merits of the president's arguments, said signing statements go back at least to President Andrew Jackson, while citing other congressional studies that such statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan administration.
Byrd and Conyers said Bush has issued 149 signing statements, 127 of which raised some objection. They said the statements often raise multiple objections, resulting in more than 700 challenges to distinct provisions of law.
The GAO said signing statements accompanied 11 of the 12 spending bills in 2006, singling out 160 specific provisions in those bills.
The issue gained attention last year after Bush — after lengthy negotiations on renewal of the Patriot Act with language backed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that banned the torture of detainees — attached a signing statement in which he reserved the right to interpret that provision.
The White House defends the statements, saying presidents have the prerogative to address matters of national security and express reservations about the constitutionality of legislation.
"We expect to continue to use statements where appropriate, on a bill-by-bill basis," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "The opportunities in this Congress have been limited since we've mostly only received bills to name post offices and federal buildings."
The American Bar Association, at an annual meeting last year, approved a resolution condemning use of signing statements, saying presidents should not resort to diluting or changing laws passed by Congress rather than using their veto powers.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press
BUSH LIES U.S. INTO WAR.......
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/leakgate.htm
The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243
ENTER:
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
Did President Bush Break 26 Different Federal Laws And Regulations?
WHAT
Jonathan Turley, law professr at George Washington University and a recognized expert on constitutional law, says the ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Detroit raises "serious implications for the Bush administration" and indicates that the President "could well have committed a federal crime at least 30 times."
ACTION DO "WE THE PEOPLE HAVE, WHEN THE
PRESIDENT BREAKS "THE RULE OF LAW"....>>
HANG EM HIGH - grounds to impeach Bush, RoadsEnd
HANG 'EM HIGH...USE YOUR VOTE LIKE A ROPE
