Monday, July 24, 2006
And you were expecting another view?
Let's face it, many lawyers spend their entire careers mingling with criminals. They can spot a crook easily, just watch who they give their business.cards to. The only time they won't publicly state that someone is crooked is when the crook is their client. Thus it is no surprise that a bipartisan 11-member panel of the American Bar Association determined that Our Dear Embattled Leader is breaking the law with his illegal use of signing statements.
In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.About what you can expect from a Preznit who has violated every amendment in the Bill of Rights except "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". I mean, why bother when you have Condi.
These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.
In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.
The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”
If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel said, but “signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto.”
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment