| abstract
| - by user False Prophet There's not a lot that can be said here about this. We all think we know what Bush has done, legal or not. But who is really correct? Well, a couple of people at the Boston globe put together a list of examples where Bush has broken the law. There are two stories I will link to:
* Opinion article citing the logic and reasoning for how Bush has disregared the law. It talks about "signing statements" that Bush has made. A signing statement is what the President can add at the bottom of the Bill in question to give his interpretation of the law. Sounds good, right? Not when this involves Bush signing laws about Government behavior, but adding in that he does not need to follow them when HE believes that National security is at stake. No outside judgment, no need for reasoning or logic, just his personal belief. For whatever reasons he wants. A quote that bothers me comes from page 4: "On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing...." This essentially means that If Bush feels that one of his guys could get in trouble if something is told to congress, he has the right to withold the information. How is it that people continue to defend a president that repeatedly refuses to abide by the law, and repeadly witholds information from congress, despite an enormous Conflict of Interest? Bush also has been told several times, according to the article, by the Supreme Court, that the Affirmative Action clauses are to remain, yet Bush refuses to abide by them. Since when is it his duty to decide what is or isn't constitutional? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty damn sure that the purpose of the Court system is to be the system to interpret the Constitution, and decide what is/isn't constitutional? While Clinton, Regan, and Pappy all did something similar in much smaller numbers, they would never issue a signing statement completely contradictory to the Bill itself: Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions. Bruce Fein, one of Regan's deputy Attorney Generals, put it best: "There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power." Here's a link to their list of Copyright Violations [1], only some of the accused 750 examples. I think that we all need to go back to 2000, or 2004 and think about a few questions:
* "Was it right that we, knowing the controversy surrounding the results, made no push to drive the Senate to stop the injustice that was the election?"
* "Was it right that we, knowing the failure that had come from the first term, sent him back to Washington?"
* And, most importantly, "Is it time to bring back the "I" word again? You know, the one we used on Billy for something as silly as a blowjob?"
* And, on top of that, is it right that we wanted Billy kicked out of office for sex, yet won't press for the same treatment of a president that has lied to us about war, and continues to abuse his power? __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)