cnn story: bush violating constitution

[firsty]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/ ... index.html

duh.

ABA: Bush violating Constitution
Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy

Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.

ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.

The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.

Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.

"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."

Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.

The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed except by firsty.

[Zlatko Waterman]

Thanks, firsty:

It's nice to see some additional authority and erudition behind this, in print.

Pacifica radio has done some in-depth reporting on Bush's unconstitutional frolics and "signing statements" for many months now. They go overlooked often, I'm afraid, except for Amy Goodman's excellent DEMOCRACY NOW.

Waiting out the Bush term will be like cruising somewhere outside Omaha with the windows down this past week--100 degrees and nothing anybody can do about it except wait for fall.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/july16-2006heat.html

Not that I have a shred of faith left in the war-promoting Dems.

Again, thanks,

--Z

[jimboloco]

obviously i am rooting for the opponent of lieberman in connecticut
forgot his name, running on anti-war platform
and what'z her name, hillary
well
she wants to be another margaret thatcher
i would say fuck her, but, well, ya know,
we got two decent democrats running for governor here in florida,
against big bucks
but I will NOT vote for Senator Bill Nelson, he's a republocrat.
hizbig defining issue is oil well digging off th coast
oh he is so noooo,
but hey, he voted fer th bunker nuster
an over and agin fer th warrr in Iraq.
baloney
bologña

so Bush passes a bill, then disses on those points that he doesn;t care for.

[firsty]

it doesnt matter who wins what.

we still dont have a democracy. we have a corporation. bush is the CEO of america. fuck that shit.

our homes, our lives, our fightin-age kids, our security, all up for sale.

bush's laws are his will only. all laws since 2000 are bush's will only. they are in no one else's interest. thats not a new thing. he thinks he's king. the parallels are disturbing and 230 years ago what was, literally, "common sense," is falling by the wayside all over again right under our noses.

if dems get to office, their will will be their law. the profiteering will simply shift. dems won't win anyway, because their business sense sucks.

[mtmynd]

firsty, doncha know "capitalism before democracy" is the American way?

[jimboloco]

mercy
i gotta say
i dig your in·vec·tivez
no doubt

Wednesday, July 26th, 2006
American Bar Association: President Bush is "Undermining Rule of Law"By Ignoring Laws Passed by Congrezz.

[the flaming ace]

let's see 2006 minus 230, that's about uh
2000 minus 30 is 1970
2006 minus 30 is 1976
minus 200 is
1776
glory hallelujahaha


Jasper Johns' Flag 1954

[firsty]

thomas paine's "common sense" was the reference. published a few months ahead of the declaration of independence.

[the flaming ace]

bushie ain't got no sense
that's fer sure
an th ones wpo viote repukeblickin
R a doin jiss that
suckin off uncle sam

[the flaming ace]

]three flagzl

[stilltrucking]

oh lie, lie, European lie !
nothing but destruction can kill you !
nothing but destruction.
and cathedrals and parliaments:
lie, lie, European lie.
and league of nations lie,
lie, European lie.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/~dc4w/laibach/sources4.html

Its a bitch firsty. I got a social security retirement check every month. I got medical insurance for about thirty eight bucks a month, I get my prescriptions filled for two bucks a piece. Hard for me to bitch. I am almost happy even if I am old. Too bad the young can't qualify as senior citizens. Any month now I excpect an IOU from Social Security instead of a check. I can't figure it out. The more money this regime squanders the better things seem to get on Wall Street.

Nothing to do with your rant. Yes the corporations own our ass. Are we the only country in the world where a corporation has "personhood"? Mere humans die, corporations are eternal beings.

[firsty]

you bring up a thought in my head from recently, that corporations have lost sight of the point of capitalism. companies arent supposed to exist for themselves, they are to exist in order to provide a service. this is what natural supply and demand is all about. however, our companies now dont believe that. they fight like, like you said, living beings. desperate for survival. when, if the system worked the way it was supposed to work, as soon as one company's role ended or change, the company would have to adapt. or die.

instead, it's the people who die for the sake of the company. the companies make fraudulent reports, use fraudulent science, manipulate supply, manipulate demand, take advantage of different markets for labor and consumers, lie, are funded by the govts, BECOME parts of the govt. thats how they stay in business in the first place and also thrive in the second place. they dont stay in business because of market demands, but because corporations, helped by the govt, are waging war on ACTUAL living beings.

as if we dont have enough problems. the rain is coming in again.

[firsty]

further:

as companies behave more like people, they are destined to scratch and claw in order to survive. this is natural human instinct.

of course, as humans, our "right" to scratch and claw and fight in order to survive are tempered by laws. we cant simply start gouging people's eyes out in order to stay alive or, to varying degrees, ensure our own state of happiness and stability.

however, companies are being allowed that "right". they are permitted by the govt and, by becoming part of the govt (cheney, bush, lobbyists), they allow themselves, to be legally permitted to scratch and claw in order to survive. we dont look at what kinds of new fuel companies we need, we look to see how to keep BP and Exxon alive and doing business. we have been scared into thinking that if verizon fails because we dont need enhanced ISPs anymore, that something bad will happen. so verizon clings to its role as ISP and make demands counter to net neutrality (as one example), and the govt supports it, rather than supporting free supply and demand to not only dictate price but also the kinds of services needed.

at the same time, not only do our laws (necessarily) prevent actual people from doing what companies are allowed to do to stay alive (lie, steal, cheat, etc), but they are making laws to prevent our actual necessary human freedoms. we are restricted in our freedom of speech in order to satisfy the ongoing life of companies who are unable to adapt to new cultures. we are restricted in our freedom of movement, restricted in our freedom of choices, by companies who realize it's necessary to restrict those things from us in order for them to stay alive. and because a company has more money than individuals, the govt represents the company, not the people who elected them.

so, companies are the new human beings, the new sentient living things that need protection, and people have been reduced to labor and funding for the companies.

this probably isnt a new thought, but it's something i've been trying to articulate for myself the past few weeks.

[stilltrucking]

you articulated it like an eighteen wheeler

Supreme Court decision in 1880's involved a rail road. Googled it and found all kinds of websites a lot of them at universities about the topic. The consensus is that it is a priority after the revolution, they are tryig t redress the problem now through the courts. When abstract consturcts written on a piece of paper lives on after the people who created it and subverts their original intent.

as if we dont have enough problems. the rain is coming in again.

On a personal note I been praying for rain up in Washington DC. Maybe wireman will get a small vacation and Jam today.

[firsty]

one thing about legal documents is that, somehow (not sure of the details, but i'm sure they are easily found in web searches), by putting the names of claimants and defendants (people) in all CAPS in legal papers, etc, the entity of those persons is thereby defined as a company, or somehow as having the same legal standing as a company, or perhaps it's vice versa. but at any rate, the legal system puts companies and people on the same level, treats them the same. for counter-culture legal experts, making the claim that a person is a person and not a corporate entity can sometimes change the legal approach in court, altho it's the same as simply claiming that, because of the flag displayed in the courtroom, somehow different laws apply. they dont all make sense, but there are cases where people representing themselves in difficult court cases have, with difficulty, made claims in court that have been supported to some degree by challenging these legal definitions of people and jurisdiction, etc.