Bush Losing Middle America On Signing Statements?

Thread starter #1
Bush appears to be losing middle America on the issue of signing statements and his brazen violation of his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

My favorite excerpt from the link below:

The Battle Creek (Mich.) Enquirer : "We find Bush's proclivity for signing statements particularly ironic in light of his oft-declared disdain for 'activist judges' who he says go beyond their constitutional duties by reinterpreting laws written by Congress."


Many Americans are waking up to the fact that Bush is using the war on terror as an excuse to consolidate extra-constitutional powers in the office of the executive. I think this is a very dangerous road to go down. Even if you think Bush is motivated by the best of intentions, consider that he won't be president in a couple of years. Would you be comfortable with a President Gore, or Kerry, or H. Clinton, or Bill Frist having the authority that Bush is claiming?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/02/BL2006080200815_pf.html
 

Randy

Senior Member
Linwood said:
Would you be comfortable with a President Gore, or Kerry, or H. Clinton, or Bill Frist having the authority that Bush is claiming?
Actually I would not be comfortable with them having ANY authority. But that is another topic entirely!!!
 

WTM45

Senior Member
Better do some research, brother! This has been standard Presidential practice since Reagan! And your boy, Bill Clinton did it too.
 

SBG

Senior Member
WTM45 said:
Better do some research, brother! This has been standard Presidential practice since Reagan! And you boy, Bill Clinton did it too.
Don't make it right though.:eek: :)
 

WTM45

Senior Member
SBG said:
Don't make it right though.:eek: :)
Never said it was "right" or wrong.

But, the whole premise of the left slanted, anti-administration article, and Linwood bringing up the subject infers this practice is something new and only Bush has been doing it. It has been going on for some time now.
 
Enforcement of laws has been a subjective thing since the country was founded, right down to the local level D.A.

It is actually a good thing the President has stood up to the "Imperial Congress" and told them many of the laws they pass are full of crap and he won't enforce them. Clinton did it all the time.

Again, another stupid thread.
 

SBG

Senior Member
WTM45 said:
Never said it was "right" or wrong.

But, the whole premise of the left slanted, anti-administration article, and Linwood bringing up the subject infers this practice is something new and only Bush has been doing it. It has been going on for some time now.
Agreed.

I do believe that it is contrary to the Framers intent in regards to the separation of powers...some of 'em anyway.:flag:
 

SBG

Senior Member
elfiii said:
Clinton did it all the time.

Again, another stupid thread.
Yep...and for all of the wrong reasons.
 
Thread starter #10
I am aware that many presidents have used signing statements to offer interpretations. Bush has taken it to another level both in number and in stating clearly not just his interpretation but rather his intent to ignore the legislation he just signed into law. As you can see from the reaction in the link I poseted, many people are raising objections.
 

dbone

Outdoor Cafe Moderator
Presidents and their signing statements :

Carter 4yrs 75
Reagan 8yrs 71
GHW Bush 4 yrs 146
Clinton 8yrs 105
GW Bush 6yrs 800 + to date

It shines that Georgey boy has only used his veto pen one time who needs veto when every law applys to everyone but him !
 
Top