It's good to be King

President reserved right to ignore laws

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13561796/

No surprise here. Even some Republicans are starting to get mad. The end justifies the means with old Bush.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.

- G.W. Bush, December 18, 2000

He’s the Supreme Dict…

KF

Much ado about nothing (as usual).

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Despite the president’s signing statement, the agencies tend to do what Congress asks of them, or congressional interference in the bureaucratic process tends to be effective.


This is according to Christopher Kelley, the political scientist who actually counted the 750 times that Bush has issued signing statements.

Toker’s Bush quote is funny. Bush has used that line (or a similar joke) dating back to when he was governor of Texas. This time, it happened only handful of days after the SCOTUS had to step in a stop the election madness of 2000. Bush hadn’t even been sworn in as president yet. :laugh:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Much ado about nothing (as usual).

Tell me - do you think that we should just remove the checks & balances? Is there any time that you can think of when the Executive over-stepped it’s bounds?

The quote shows you exactly how Bush thinks though (IMO).

Given that the SCOTUS ( :) ) now has folks who favor the “unitary executive” theory, it is most certainly a time to worry. It’s not just how Bush thinks, it’s the long range goals of ultra radical Christian conservatives, the early fruits of a strategy they put in place 25 years ago or so. ksdb, hope you don’t mind the gov’t looking at your phone, school, financial, and email records. Just like in highly democratic places like China.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,08:08)
Given that the SCOTUS ( :) ) now has folks who favor the "unitary executive" theory, it is most certainly a time to worry. It's not just how Bush thinks, it's the long range goals of ultra radical Christian conservatives, the early fruits of a strategy they put in place 25 years ago or so. ksdb, hope you don't mind the gov't looking at your phone, school, financial, and email records. Just like in highly democratic places like China.

Sorry, but I'm not impressed by the conspiracy paranoia. First, the SCOTUS can't make arbitrary changes in the power structure and bureaucracy. Second, even if they did, it would be an extremely slow process that would show minimal change over a long period, most likely a time in which these current members will be long gone. Third, ultra-radical Christian conservatives (nice demonizing label BTW) don't run this country and have no more influence than any other constituency of the same size. Fourth, there 300 million people in this country and growing. The logistics of sifting through phone, school, financial and e-mail records is not only impractical, but the information provided in such records is generally valueless for any kind of oppressive function of the government. Throwing out a comparison to China makes for a nice shock factor, but that's about all.

re: 1 and 2: The SC can make significant changes in power structure and bureaucracy - think about the significance of late 19th and then early 20th century rulings on occupational saftey and health laws or on unions and the right to free contract. Or think about the guiding philosophy of the court during FDR’s adminstration. Nope, big changes that happen fairly quickly are possible and have in fact occured. In any case, 25- 50 years is the time frame we are working in - that’s how the ultra-radical conservative Christians have been thinking about it.

re: 3: That group was decisive in the last two elections.

Re: 4: you are kidding, right? Of course our gov’t has that capability. They admit they have been doing all the things I listed. And I meant the China comparison, not for shock value, but because the similarity is in fact shocking to a person who values individual rights.

We should worry! Opression starts slow and can build quite rapidly. I just got back from a History tour of the the east;Phila,Gettysburg and DC. The Holocaust museum; and there are quite a few parallels between then and now…especially now that they want to criminalize the FREE press for doing it’s job. admittedly it’s too early to cry fascism but the slope is slippery!

Cruiser

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
re: 1 and 2: The SC can make significant changes in power structure and bureaucracy - think about the significance of late 19th and then early 20th century rulings on occupational saftey and health laws or on unions and the right to free contract. Or think about the guiding philosophy of the court during FDR’s adminstration.

What do the rulings on occupational safety have to do with the three branches of government and how they are structured?? You were bemoaning the unitary executive theory, so what were the actual changes to government structure, based on these rulings?? And what about the philosophy during FDR?? You’re assuming that we can read your mind and draw some sort of cogent point from your musings.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
Nope, big changes that happen fairly quickly are possible and have in fact occured. In any case, 25- 50 years is the time frame we are working in - that’s how the ultra-radical conservative Christians have been thinking about it.

And what do they have to show for it?? Again, you’re throwing out a lot of vagaries.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
re: 3: That group was decisive in the last two elections.

I guess this means that you consider Bush to be an “ultra-radical Christian conservative.” He’s Christian, but the other parts are extremely debatable.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
Re: 4: you are kidding, right? Of course our gov’t has that capability. They admit they have been doing all the things I listed. And I meant the China comparison, not for shock value, but because the similarity is in fact shocking to a person who values individual rights.

And what enumerated individual rights are violated by those capabilities?? Let’s see some specific comparisons between these violations in China and America.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 27 2006,20:43)

Tell me - do you think that we should just remove the checks & balances?

Sorry, pal, but the executive branch IS part of the checks and balances. It’s not congress and SCOTUS only. The executive isn’t merely subordinate to the other branches of government.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 27 2006,20:43)

Is there any time that you can think of when the Executive over-stepped it’s bounds?

Like interning Americans during WWII??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 27 2006,20:43)
The quote shows you exactly how Bush thinks though (IMO).

Whose quote??

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Sorry, pal, but the executive branch IS part of the checks and balances.

Another artful dodge by ksdb. You know I’m talking about the check & balances ON the executive in this instance. Do you think that Congress & the SC should check & balance the executive. A simple yes or no will do.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Like interning Americans during WWII??

Another artful dodge (and cheap shot). Are you saying that the Executive overstepped it’s bounds here or not?

Be fair & balanced now - can you think of an example where a Republican President over-stepped his bounds? I bet you can’t (or won’t).

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,11:56)

Another artful dodge by ksdb. You know I’m talking about the check & balances ON the executive in this instance. Do you think that Congress & the SC should check & balance the executive. A simple yes or no will do.

You’re actually the one dodging here, because there’s nothing to indicate that any checks and balances represented by Congress and the SCOTUS have been compromised. Congress can still impeach the president and the SCOTUS can still review cases that are presented to them.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,11:56)

Another artful dodge (and cheap shot).

American history is a cheap shot?? It’s no more cheap than suggesting that presidential signing statements somehow overstep executive powers.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,11:56)
Are you saying that the Executive overstepped it’s bounds here or not?

Which executive?? You’re being extremely vague. Instead of playing your riddle games, just make a point if you have one.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,11:56)
Be fair & balanced now - can you think of an example where a Republican President over-stepped his bounds? I bet you can’t (or won’t).

No, being fair and balanced would be for you to mention an example of a Democrat overstepping his bounds. This thread started as an indictment of Bush. It’s not going to be fair and balanced for me to agree with that or to come up with other examples.

Let’s see if I can be very clear & simple, so just you can understand:

1) Should Spector stop his investigation into the NSA wiretapping?

2) Did FDR over-step his bounds in WWII when he interned Japanese American citizens?

A simple: YES or NO will suffice. If you don’t answer these questions, then it’s pointless debating with you.

Quote (ksdb @ June 28 2006,11:14)
Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
re: 1 and 2: The SC can make significant changes in power structure and bureaucracy - think about the significance of late 19th and then early 20th century rulings on occupational saftey and health laws or on unions and the right to free contract. Or think about the guiding philosophy of the court during FDR's adminstration.

What do the rulings on occupational safety have to do with the three branches of government and how they are structured?? You were bemoaning the unitary executive theory, so what were the actual changes to government structure, based on these rulings?? And what about the philosophy during FDR?? You're assuming that we can read your mind and draw some sort of cogent point from your musings.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
Nope, big changes that happen fairly quickly are possible and have in fact occured. In any case, 25- 50 years is the time frame we are working in - that's how the ultra-radical conservative Christians have been thinking about it.

And what do they have to show for it?? Again, you're throwing out a lot of vagaries.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
re: 3: That group was decisive in the last two elections.

I guess this means that you consider Bush to be an "ultra-radical Christian conservative." He's Christian, but the other parts are extremely debatable.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,10:51)
Re: 4: you are kidding, right? Of course our gov't has that capability. They admit they have been doing all the things I listed. And I meant the China comparison, not for shock value, but because the similarity is in fact shocking to a person who values individual rights.

And what enumerated individual rights are violated by those capabilities?? Let's see some specific comparisons between these violations in China and America.

Um, well, I guess I don't really want to take the time to explain most of this - I assume you have a pretty good understanding of US history, and know about the rise adn fall of freedom of contract, the rise of unions, and what happened under FDR. In short: in the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a battle in the courts about legislation that limited contractual options - limited hours, e.g., or regulated working conditions. Likewise about the legality and place of unions. Whether one likes or hates the shift away from a court that held that governmental involvement was not allowed to one that thought experimentalism was good, either way it was a shift that resulted in a great deal of power going to the executive that it did not have before. FDR's tenure really built on this pragmatic approach. Additionally, it also signaled the rise of a judicial philosophy that gave greater scope to the kinds of things the SC could do. Those sound to me like the kinds of changes you say can't happen.

Bush is Christian, of course, and has been coy about his view on end-times, but he is certainly not the same kind of Christian that Jimmy Carter is, for example. I suspec the is a dispensationalist; but in any case, your inference is not justified, since what I claimed was that part of his base was decisive, the ultra consertaive Christian far right. No one disputes that, you know.

The right violated in the specific cases is the right to be free of warantless searches and seizures. You'll find it in the Fourth Amendment.



Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:42)
Let's see if I can be very clear & simple, so just you can understand:

1) Should Spector stop his investigation into the NSA wiretapping?

2) Did FDR over-step his bounds in WWII when he interned Japanese American citizens?

A simple: YES or NO will suffice. If you don't answer these questions, then it's pointless debating with you.

:D

toker you always say that, and yet...



Anyway, it's always good to read your posts.

:D

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Third, ultra-radical Christian conservatives (nice demonizing label BTW) don’t run this country and have no more influence than any other constituency of the same size.

Tom did not demonize Bush - he simply made statements that are true. I agree that they don’t run the country but I disagree that they don’t have more power - they’ve been gaining power for the last 20 years. Bush has indeed been coy about his beliefs & it’s pretty easy to see through his coyness.

So I guess ksdb would say the same thing about gays then, i.e., they don’t run the country and no more influence than any other constituency of the same size. So all this fuss about a Constitional Admendment banning gay marriage is just stupid - right ksdb?

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Sorry, but I’m not impressed by the conspiracy paranoia.

Who’s saying it’s a conspiracy? It’s no conspiracy - it’s balant. It’s on the front page.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
First, the SCOTUS can’t make arbitrary changes in the power structure and bureaucracy. Second, even if they did, it would be an extremely slow process that would show minimal change over a long period, most likely a time in which these current members will be long gone.

This is exactly why the right has been screaming about the SC “legislating from the bench”, i.e., they think the court has done just what you say it can’t do.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
toker you always say that, and yet…

Yes I do & you’ll notice that he never answers my questions. He does that deliberately because he’s knows I’ll back him into a corner.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)

Tom did not demonize Bush - he simply made statements that are true.

I didn’t say he did. He did, however, demonize a lot of Christians.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)
I agree that they don’t run the country but I disagree that they don’t have more power - they’ve been gaining power for the last 20 years.

The question is whether they have power that exceeds anybody else’s based on our representative style of government.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)
Bush has indeed been coy about his beliefs & it’s pretty easy to see through his coyness.

Watch out. Now it’s evil to be coy.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)
So I guess ksdb would say the same thing about gays then, i.e., they don’t run the country and no more influence than any other constituency of the same size. So all this fuss about a Constitional Admendment banning gay marriage is just stupid - right ksdb?

In a word, yes, the fuss is stupid. A constitutional amendment puts the matter to the people. The states have to ratify it, so it’s part of the democratic process. You would probably prefer that a court of 5 individuals just make a decision FOR EVERYONE ELSE??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)

Who’s saying it’s a conspiracy? It’s no conspiracy - it’s balant. It’s on the front page.

What the #### is balant?? And what does the front page prove?? The conspiracy I was talking about is TomS’s paranoia about URCCs. Was that on the front page too??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)
This is exactly why the right has been screaming about the SC “legislating from the bench”, i.e., they think the court has done just what you say it can’t do.

Try to stick to the topic. We’re referring to executive powers and we’re looking for examples of how the SCOTUS has made the executive stronger than he or she is constitutionally allowed to be.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 28 2006,12:50)

Yes I do & you’ll notice that he never answers my questions. He does that deliberately because he’s knows I’ll back him into a corner.

I don’t bother with your questions because they are meaningless challenges and deflections. The corner that you try to back me into usually has little or nothing to do with the thread or topic. Second, your “corner” is usually built around tangential semantics. Try to make a point instead of play a game and you’ll get a lot farther.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,12:47)
Um, well, I guess I don’t really want to take the time to explain most of this - I assume you have a pretty good understanding of US history, and know about the rise adn fall of freedom of contract, the rise of unions, and what happened under FDR. In short: in the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a battle in the courts about legislation that limited contractual options - limited hours, e.g., or regulated working conditions. Likewise about the legality and place of unions. Whether one likes or hates the shift away from a court that held that governmental involvement was not allowed to one that thought experimentalism was good, either way it was a shift that resulted in a great deal of power going to the executive that it did not have before. FDR’s tenure really built on this pragmatic approach. Additionally, it also signaled the rise of a judicial philosophy that gave greater scope to the kinds of things the SC could do. Those sound to me like the kinds of changes you say can’t happen.

I’m not looking for a history lesson, just a specific example or two of how the executive was empowered beyond constitutional limits by a specific ruling. So far you’re not really connecting the dots very well.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,12:47)
Bush is Christian, of course, and has been coy about his view on end-times, but he is certainly not the same kind of Christian that Jimmy Carter is, for example. I suspec the is a dispensationalist; but in any case, your inference is not justified, since what I claimed was that part of his base was decisive, the ultra consertaive Christian far right. No one disputes that, you know.

So you don’t think this part of his base deserves to have voting rights?? All I’m seeing is a blanket dismissal based on nothing more than your personal disapproval URCCs.

Quote (TomS @ June 28 2006,12:47)
The right violated in the specific cases is the right to be free of warantless searches and seizures. You’ll find it in the Fourth Amendment.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Phone, school, e-mail and financial records involve third-party organizations and entities. These types of records may not be controlled or owned exclusively by private individuals. Can you show where the government is accessing any of these records without lawful cooperation from those entities such as the phone companies, libraries, e-mail providers, financial institutions, etc.??