I know I'm firmly in the anti-Bush camp despite voting for him twice, but the signing statements and this wartime justification the president uses for rampantly abusing his power should be shocking more people than it is. Torture, FISA, and even his own PATRIOT Act can be ignored simply because the president says so?
Anyone who makes speeches discussing his "political capital", how much he has, and how he plans to spend it is someone that truly makes me feel uneasy if they happen to also hold the most powerful position in society. I have felt for years that he considers himself above the law and the rest of this country. It is the way he acts and the way he talks. For people to act surprised now makes me wonder how they missed this early on.
I'm surprised. There's a fair amount of difference between having a rich kid's sense of entitlement and playing fast and loose with the Constitution.
That did it!
I'm never voting for G.W. again!
I'm not saying it's unique to this administration. But you honestly think any past president has used signing statements to the extent Bush has to subvert the will of Congress? I highly doubt that.
I don't think the extent of its use qualifies whether it is a proper or improper exercise of executive power.
The right wingnuttery is is all for this stuff until the Dems find themselves another Clenis...
Why not? Combine that with the ever-growing powers of government with regards to the Patriot Act and you get a whole lot of power being thrown around with little in the way of check and balances. I mean, the power is supposed to be with the people, right?
I demand that the power be returned to the people!
The power is with the people, to the extent that they choose the government via the voting process. They vote for their particular representatives in the legislative branch, and everyone votes for the President.
Your point about the Patriot Act is a non sequiter, given that was passed by Congress and signed by the President, and there is not a fight about its interpretation between those branches.
If you don't like how much power the federal government has, you and I are in the same position -- but the problem didn't start with this President. Go back to Wickard v. Filburn and the New Deal, and move on from there...
Historically, and by philosophy, the Democratic socialist agenda allows less freedom and less power for the individual American than the Republican agenda.
Buh... Buh... Buh... But Clinton did it!
The whine of the Bush faithful, which excuses anything Bush does.
There's a difference between a signing statement, and a signing statement that says the president doesn't have to submit to congressional oversight, and can secretly bypass oversight whenever he wants, at his sole discretion.
Bush seems to think we have a monarchy here.
You're a jackass.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Please do provide the text of the signing statements to which your referring.
ADDENDUM: I should add that if all you got from the link was "Buh... Buh... Buh... But Clinton did it!" you have affirmed my general regard for your analytical ability.
this USED to be true...
but now, except for a few key issues, the dems and repubs big government agenda is very similar...
Where the living hell have you been the last decade or two? "Historically" has taken it up the ass with no vaseline.
one could argue that it goes even further back than that...
the move toward a BIG CENRTALIZED GOVERNMENT started at least as far back as the introduction of the federal income tax...
I think that is a good case for a strong third party