Specter wants to pass law agaisnt changing laws

[Thin Black Line]

good luck getting that to happen if the executive enjoys majority priviledge.

+1. People are so busy defending the current administration because he
was "my guy" that they are blinded to what will come down the pike at
them in the future. They agree with the current executive "decider" of
the law, but I can only imagine the level of hysterical whining on THR and
the AM radio tripe waves when a new "decider" takes away our guns and
sets up mobile checkpoints across the country. The whining will be curtailed,
of course, because the new "Decider" will censor the net and AM radio
because *she* feels it's within her presidential powers to do so in a time of
war --just like the earlier calls against the NYT. Remember, we'll still be
in that "Long War" for many decades to come

Yeah, that day will suck big time, but people will have spent all this time
during the previous administration, in other words right now, defending the
executive's sole privilege as the "decider" in a later one.

The future leftist-globalist-loving-US-Administration thanks you all in advance
for your efforts in supporting sole Executive interpretation of the Constitution
and the selective interpretation of law based upon it! You've supported the
concentration of power now, so be prepared to hand in your guns later.
Moledetz, moi tovarischi! Spasibo....

 

[RealGun]

People are so busy defending the current administration because he
was "my guy"

He was the better choice, and once having made that choice you support your President and be entirely fair in any criticism. You kept using the word "decider", which indicates you don't like his style and are not above being petty. If you forget about the occasional graceless choice of words, a weak encore to Slick Willy's ability, and consider the substance of his positions, you have less trouble admitting that you support the guy.

In any case, this thread is not about Bush bashing. It is more about the law. Bush is not the first President to do this but is the first to do it in an acknowledged environment of very real security threats.

 

[Thin Black Line]

which indicates you don't like his style and are not above being petty.

I'm a conservative, so substance is more important than style to me.

As far as "petty", yeah, I learned to be that way in Iraq I guess

 

[RealGun]

As far as "petty", yeah, I learned to be that way in Iraq I guess

Nice red herring. Thanks for your service.

 

[Thin Black Line]

What some would call a "red herring" I call "hard truths to swallow" for them

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

TBL, I'd avoid getting involved in arguments with chickenhawks who haven't been to Iraq themselves but who loudly bray about how well things are going over there. The first-person reports I've heard from people who have actually been there indicate that if anything the war is a bigger disaster than we are being led to believe in the press. But what should we have expected when the president who led us into this war didn't even understand the differences between the Shiites and the Sunnis months before the war began, according to the book "The End of Iraq" by US Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member Peter W. Galbraith.

 

[RealGun]

Probably best not to spar back and forth on stupid stuff, but a red herring as disarming obfuscation has nothing to do with denying any truth of the matter.

 

[Ira Aten]

New Information regarding same issue

Below is a seemingly more "balanced" news report dated yesterday afternoon. I post this because the first one I posted was criticized for insinuating Bush had actually written on the bill itself (which he did, as shown on a separate article I posted later that the article's statement had been twice reported as such, in order to prove I had not made it up in an attempt to "bash Bush".)

Then I was told that the "signing statements" did not effect the law, since "they were not included on the final printing of the law", which I disproved, by posting yet another article showing that indeed, Bush had the Federal Register print his "comments" within that bill, in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Thus, it brings up Constitutional problems. (Big ones according to the article below)

So here is another article, with the Senate Judiciary Chariman's announcement of his intent to intoduce legislation allowing suit, because the President is simply drafting law and signing it into legislation rather than returning a bill he does not agree with to the House in which it originated.

Even the ABA, which makes up (in my opinion) the largest group of individuals in history ever to attempt to subvert and hide the words within our Constitution, (e.g. People = National Guard Soldier) agrees that the President is dictating which portions of that bill will be law, and which portions shall not be, rather than administrating the enforcement of law, and it is therefore Unconstitutional.

I still contend (1) The President has written his intention that his office is not bound by the non-torture clause Congress voted to pass DIRECTLY on the Document itself, (next to his signature on the orignal bill) not a "separate document" as someone on the thread claimed, and: (2) He then instructed the Federal Register to be printed with his comments included within that legislation (according to this article) which has subverted the intent of the legislation itself.

and; (3) He did it knowingly and with fraudulent intent; and (4) Specter is wrong to introduce another Bill that would allow the Congress to sue the President when the impeachment suit remedy (awaits patiently) to be utilized to protect the Rights of the People; and (5) Specter is more concerned with the Power of Congress than he is in protecting the Rights of the People, by introducing a bill allowing for a suit rather than using the impeachment process to protect the People's rights. (6) It is the People who have been harmed, not the Senate. If the Senate loses the damn suit, the President (Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Rudy "Let me register your guns" Guliani in '08) will have the power to "add" or "delete" whatever she or he wishes when signing legislation.

From : http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/lawyers.bush.ap/index.html

Wednesday, July 26, 2006; Posted: 4:50 a.m. EDT (08:50 GMT)


Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter argues that Bush's signing statements are unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action. (Full story)

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law."'

Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.

Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.

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

 

[foob]

Bush is not the first President to do this but is the first to do it in an acknowledged environment of very real security threats.

I'm sure the civil war, US-mexican war, spanish-american war, world war I, world war II, korean war, vietnam war, cuban missile crisis, cold war, and racial riots were very fake security threats.

 

[roo_ster]

Ira, you are tightly wrapped around the axle...about something which is essentially meaningless.

Signing statements are not law and do not change the letter of the law. They can, at most, have an effect on how the executive branch enforces it or signal how POTUS desires it enforced.

Sometimes, they look more like explanations or apologies for signing the sheepskin at hand. So the POTUS can say to Constituent A, "I signed the bill," and to Constituent B, "I signed the bill, but my intent is thus-and-so." Imagine that, a politician trying to have it both ways.

Let us say we live in the alternate Star Trek universe where signing statements are outlawed...the net effect would be bupkis. Instead of a signing statement in front of witnesses and with a flourish, the POTUS makes his intent WRT the law know via memos to the pertinent bureaucrats and executive orders.

I would prefer the more above-board signing statement, even if the effect is to thwart Congress's intent, to the back-channel memo. If the POTUS is going to be dishonest WRT his obliged execution, I'd rather know up front, so I can my will known about the whole deal. It is harder to do that without the signing statement.

In the end, this is much ado about nothing.

 

[RealGun]

I'm sure the civil war, US-mexican war, spanish-american war, world war I, world war II, korean war, vietnam war, cuban missile crisis, cold war, and racial riots were very fake security threats.

I have to ask if any of those periods included Presidents who used signing statements.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Then I was told that the "signing statements" did not effect the law, since "they were not included on the final printing of the law", which I disproved, by posting yet another article showing that indeed, Bush had the Federal Register print his "comments" within that bill, in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

Just a quick point in basic reasoning; but showing that comments are printed in the Federal Register isn't the same thing as showing that signing statements affect the law.

Can you point to a case where a signing statement changed the outcome? If not, then it is hard to argue that they effect the law.

Even the ABA, which makes up (in my opinion) the largest group of individuals in history ever to attempt to subvert and hide the words within our Constitution, (e.g. People = National Guard Soldier) agrees that the President is dictating which portions of that bill will be law, and which portions shall not be, rather than administrating the enforcement of law, and it is therefore Unconstitutional.

The ABA openly supports abortion, opposition to the death penalty and gun control in it's platform and they don't care for how the President enforces the laws? Go figure. The ABA make some good and valid points in their press release; but at the end of the day it isn't an accident that they didn't speak up when Clinton was doing this. Their participation in this is politically motivated and so you have to filter their comments more closely. For example:

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Anybody with standing can challenge either the enforcement of a particular law or the practice of signing statements. Here are the requirements for standing:

1. Must show personal injury (actual or threatened) as a result of putatively illegal conduct by defendant
2. Injury can be fairly traced to challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision

Prudential limitations imposed by court on itself in addition to above:
(1) Plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights or interests, cannot rest claim on rights or interests of third parties (some exceptions for associations that look after member interests like the NRA and NAACP)
(2) Cannot assert a generalized grievance that is pervasively shared and is most appropriately addressed by the legislature
(3) Cannot be a claim outside the zone of interest protected by the relevant statute or constitutional provision

Those seem like pretty reasonable requirements to me. In fact, forget the huge expense of litigating this (born solely by the taxpayers on both sides), if you can't meet those requirements should we really be having a big showdown where nine unelected judges decide an issue that will affect the way our government works forever?

Here is the key quote from the CNN article that shoots down the argument against signing statements if true:

"Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law."'

Your problem doesn't appear to be with signing statements - it is with whether or not the President is faithfully executing the laws of the land. Strangely enough, none of the news articles give much attention to that particular aspect of the debate. They tell us the President challenges the authority of Congress to dictate how often checkpoints at a particular border must be moved; but they don't tell us if that has actually changed enforcement of the law. Why do you think they missed that particular detail?

 

[RealGun]

Ira, you are tightly wrapped around the axle...about something which is essentially meaningless.

He is also stubbornly trying to change the subject to impeachment. He is barking at the moon when that is not even considered in Specter's initiative.

 

[MechAg94]

I don't mean to offend, but the fact that you served doesn't make your opinion worth any more than the cost to post on this forum. Same worth as my opinion. IMAO, You are doing yourself and others who served a disservice by trying to imply that you are right because you served and everyone else is a chickenhawk and don't know anything. (just my worthless opinion. )
I don't know if that is what you really think, but that is the way it came across to me.

 

[MechAg94]

Bush will only be in there a couple more years. Seems to me it would be more useful to think about who the next President will be and do what you can to make sure it is someone you can live with. These "signing statements" are only meaningful as long as Bush is in office anyway.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Realgun:

"He is also stubbornly trying to change the subject to impeachment. He is barking at the moon when that is not even considered in Specter's initiative."

First, I am the one pointing out that Specter is not paying attention to the remedy of impeachment, and instead is trying to create a new law. Second, I am not changing the subject, if you would read my original post, (fifth paragraph, first sentence thereof) you will see that I not only brought it up while bitching about it in the first (and aLL following posts) and if you would bother to actually READ my posts, you will see that MY WHOLE POINT OF ARGUMENT IS, SPECTER, IS AVOIDING THE FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION IS THERE FOR THE EXACT PURPOSE TO RESOLVE WHAT HE COMPLAINS ABOUT.

MY ORIGINAL GRIPE IS, SPECTER IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO NOT HAVE SOME MORON SCRIBBLING WITH A CRAYON DIRECTLY ON BILLS THAT GET PRINTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, WITH THE INTENT OF PLACING AN ILLEGAL VETO IN THE BILL WHILE DOING SO, WHEN THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SAYS IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT AGREE, HE SHALL RETURN IT TO THE HOUSE IN WHICH IT ORIGINATED.

SPECTER IS MORE INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE POWER OF CONGRESS THAN HE IS IN INSURING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. (You will find that all over my previous posts)

One of the reasons it is important that a President not scribble on a Bill that gets signed and printed in the Federal Register, is that some idiot in law enforcement can believe he has a defense for torturing a suspect, because language in the Federal Register could lead someone to believe that a law exists allowing it under "emergency" situations (since that is what he stuck in the '05 law according to the darn news article)

An idot cop in New Orleans believed a law existed which allowed him to order a wholesale confiscation of guns in an entire city. So that is one reason I kind of take it seriously that a President (who also believes he can unilaterally sign treaties with other nations www.spp.gov) not scribble whatever he pleases on a bill before he signs it.

Because it is the Congress that authors law. Well, uh, I mean it used to be that way, until we let this slide.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I don't mean to offend, but the fact that you served doesn't make your opinion worth any more than the cost to post on this forum. Same worth as my opinion.

The fact that he has spent time fighting the war in Iraq means that he has significantly more first-hand experience than most of us weenies jacking our jaws on forums like this; hence his opinion does have more value than yours because it's based on personal knowledge rather than second-hand propaganda.

Think about it this way. Imagine that you are some yahoo reading Internet forums on nuclear physics, but your degree is in carpentry from a two-year tech school and you have never even been in a nuclear physics lab. According to your logic, your opinion on the construction of a nuclear reactor would be just as valid as the opinion of a person who had a degree in nuclear physics and had worked on the development of a nuclear reactor.

 

[Derby FALs]

The fact that he has spent time fighting the war in Iraq means that he has significantly more first-hand experience than most of us weenies jacking our jaws on forums like this; hence his opinion does have more value than yours because it's based on personal knowledge rather than second-hand propaganda.

Not to offend but does it mean he's learned anything pertinent by doing so? Even though I do believe I agree with him. LOL

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Not to offend but does it mean he's learned anything pertinent by doing so?

This means he's had an opportunity to learn something that the rest of us haven't. That is all any of us have. If you don't think training and experience are important measures of ability, then how about letting the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's perform the triple bypass those burgers will ultimately cause you to get? How about you let the dude in the pit at Jiffy Lube deliver your next baby? If you invalidate training and experience, then there's no reason to seek the advice or service of trained, experienced professionals for anything.

But of course you will seek out a trained doctor for the above services; if you have a complex tax problem, you will seek advice from a CPA instead of a psychotic homeless person. If you have legal problems you will seek the advice of a lawyer instead of a homeopathic healer. You will dismiss the opinion of a trained professional with real-world experience when that opinion threatens your ego, but you would never do something so idiotic if your life was on the line.

Edited to add: Sorry I'm being so harsh here, but recently I have seen this sort of argument from apoint of ignorance lead to tragic results for members of my immediate family. I genuinely apologize for my crankiness.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Legal and Political
Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

Should this thread be closed, too? Is how the federal gov't chooses to follow
laws under any given administration of any consequence for gun-owners?

 

[silliman89]

There seems to be as much confusion about what the Federal Register is as there was originally about a signing statement.

Then I was told that the "signing statements" did not effect the law, since "they were not included on the final printing of the law", which I disproved, by posting yet another article showing that indeed, Bush had the Federal Register print his "comments"

So what is the Federal Register? Gee let's look it up instead of all pretending that we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_register

The Federal Register (abbreviated FR or Fed reg) is a publication of the United States Government that contains most routine publications and public notices of government agencies. The FR is published daily, and provides notice to the public of a federal government agency's proposed new rules, or changes to existing rules. The published notice, called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (or "NPRM") typically requests public comment on a proposed rule, and provides notice of any public meetings where a proposed rule will be discussed. The public comments are considered by the issuing government agency, and the text of a final rule is published in the FR. The FR also contains executive orders and other presidential documents. In essence, the FR is a way for the government to think aloud to the people. The notice and comment process outlined in the FR gives the people a chance to participate in agency rulemaking.

So it turns out that the Federal Registry has nothing to do with laws passed by congress, but rather agency rules, executive orders, and presidential documents. The fact that Bush's "comments" or signing statement were printed in the Federal Registry only "proves" that they had nothing to do with modifying the law.

 

[gc70]

Actually, silliman89, you just blew a big hole in Ira Aten's argument.

One of the reasons it is important that a President not scribble on a Bill that gets signed and printed in the Federal Register, is that some idiot in law enforcement can believe he has a defense for torturing a suspect, because language in the Federal Register could lead someone to believe that a law exists allowing it under "emergency" situations (since that is what he stuck in the '05 law according to the darn news article)

Here is what the Government Printing Office says about the Federal Register:

the Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.

So you go to the Federal Register to find out what the executive branch of government is doing.

If you want to find out about what the legistative branch of government is doing (and what laws have been passed), look at the Congressional Record:

The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress.

If comments in the Federal Register might confuse some poor law enforcement officer, then the debates published in the Congressional Record would cause outright pandemonium.

 

[silliman89]

As I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer but I just looked it up, when a bill is signed by the President it is enrolled into the National Archives. The Archivist of the United States sends a copy to the GPO that issues a pamphlet called a "slip law" for each enrolled bill. At the end of the year all the enrolled bills are published together as "Statutes at Large".

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

So you could look at the individual slip laws or the annual Statutes at Large to see what laws had been enacted. No one does that though, because those are chronological and so it's hard to find anything. People who want to know what Federal law says look in the US Code.

Where does the US Code come from exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_code

The Code is maintained by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (LRC) of the U.S. House of Representatives. The LRC determines which statutes should be codified, and which existing laws are affected by amendments or repeals, or have simply expired by their own terms. The LRC updates the Code accordingly.

So, even if there were any change made to the bill during signing, or anywhere else, Congress has complete control over coding it into law. They would notice and correct it.

There's no shame in not knowing this. No one needs to know it, unless maybe they're a lawyer, but it's all freely available with a little research.

What should be embarrassing in this day and age is believing anything written by the press. Just because it was in the paper doesn't make it true.

 

[Ira Aten]

I will try one more time, and ask that you read the entirity of this post.

Bush's "signing statement" in '05, wherein he scribbled on the Bill itself is the issue. The Bill is the original document.

The news reports state Bush delcared on the original Bill itself, (and in a separate "signing statement" that was printed in the Federal Resiter according to the article which nobody seems to have even read) that he, in administering his Executive office, considered the law AGAINST TORTURE TO NOT BE BINDING. THAT IS WHY THE ABA, AND SPECTER WANT TO SUE.

Realgun previously posted: " He is trying to change the subject" to the issue of impeachment. I point out that in my original post (and in all subsequent ones as well) that my issue is Specter (and the ABA) wanting to use a lawsuit, rather than impeachment, as a remedy. That is dangerous, and I will do my best to explain why.

I tried to point out that the news articles show that the ABA and Specters complaint is that Bush scribbled on the ORIGINAL BILL previous to signing it, creating what they believed to be, a Constitutional problem since he is in effect dictating law while circumventing the Constitution. That is what Specter, and the ABA claim.

The most recent post disputing my argument that I will try to further describe below, is that the BILL WASN'T PRINTED in the register AS I HAD CLAIMED. You are correct on that point, however, my main statement about the Bill itself, and the printing in the register, was in response to another post that says the "COMMENTS WERE NOT" printed in the register, and I showed that to NOT be the case. The Comments were Bush's declaration he was not intending to follow thatpart of the law, and he had made a note "right next to his signature" on the Bill itself.

I emphasized that the ORIGINAL bill has a change to it done unilaterall and intentionally by PResidnet Bush at the time he signed it into law and that the ORIGINAL is what is now of record.

And then you guys complain, "well, you said it was printed in the Register in totale" and it's not. You are correct on that scintilla of a point. However, I want to clarify what my original (and all subsequent posts) have attempted to convey.

My entire gripe is that Specter is concerned more for his powers in Congress, than our right not to have the Constitution subverted by a guy who thinks he can fraudulently attempt to change law. (I will set out in great detail below, why Specter is harming us as much as Bush is attempting to)

The following is how law is made:

Article VI: THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND: and judges in every State, shall be bound thereby, ANY THING in the Constitution or LAWS OF ANY STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.

You guys know the Article/Clause that describes the proper thing the President is supposed to do should he not "agree" with a bill AS IS.

The Constitution doesn't say the President can issue any executive order or statement CHANGING LAW. It also does not say he can sign (without Congressional approval) a treaty, "Fastrack Authority" notwithstanding, since "Fastrack Authority" is not a "law in pursuance" to the Constitution. It in fact, subverts the Constitution as demonstrated by Bush thinking he can sign the "North American Partnership" agreement which in fact is a treaty, and you can find it at www.spp.gov.

Bush signed that he describes as an "agreement between our three countries" on March 23rd, 2005 in Crawford Texas. In additon to doing so, he is changing an original document in the form of a Bill he signs into law, which was presented to him by the United States Congress. And he has done it in direct defiance of the Constitution, declaring part of it valid, and parts of it not to be.

But here is the BIG PROBLEM: Specter and the ABA have declared they wish to pass yet another law that is not "in pursuance of" the Constitution itself.

Another law allowing suit, lessens the value of the impeachment clause by disregarding it. If Congress feels that the President has done what they say he has done, then they need to fulfill their duty, and impeach, hold trial, and remove him from office. To do less is to endanger our Constitutonal rights for impeachment of "all civil officers" as I will point out in greater detail below.

Giving away the impeachment power (as Specter and the ABA suggest) by passing another law allowing suit (when impeachment is the proper suit for the BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE) is a major problem. Because that further removes our rights to petition our Congress to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, or other "civil officer" of the United States.

Based upon the posts I have read, it appears most people have decided that if the President of the United States wants to add in, or use a line item veto power which he does not have, (due to such power being totally opposite of the entire intent of the Constitution) then it is okie dokie if a Federal Judge (one single employee of the U.S. Government) hears a case in a lawsuit filed by a Senator (instead of an impeachment held by Congress) and the Judge says the actions were fine, and later if three out of five other Federal Employees (SCOTUS) uphold it, you have entirely changed the structure of the Constitution regarding the three branches!

Next, I am sure someone will, without reading Articles II, Section IV, and Article III, Section I (which interestingly enough follows directly Article II, Section IV) will tell me how it is not possible to impeach a member of SCOTUS, "because they are appointed for lifetime" terms, which is not the case if you read the two articles and sections I point out above.

The Congress has to have the power to protect the People from a President who tries to draft laws fraudulently, or a SCOTUS member who creates law from the bench rather than interpret legislation as to it being "in pursuance of the Constitution. Allowing one Federal Judge who can rule in favor of the guy that may have appointed him to that government job, is a VERY VERY bad idea.

I say it is not law, not because of where it is because (1) IT IS NOT "in pursuance of the Constitution."

I think a President trying to alter something on a Bill presented him by Congress, on something (or anything for that matter) as important as torturing a citizen of the United States, is a matter for great concern to our Constitutional rights.

Again I re-state, if a law enforcement officer were to believe (as did the idiot in New Orleans who thought an "emergency" allowed for a wholesale gun confiscation and kidnapping of peaceable citizens from their homes) that he had authority to do something due to being misled by fraud because the President had written an exclusion onto that bill, and printed same in the Federal Register, it can present the person being tortured/interrogated with quite a problem. The articles (if you will actually read them) say the President ordered his alterations that were placed on the original bill, printed in the register.

I don't know if you guys have ever had the pleasure of dealing with your standard grade government employee, but most believe they have authority to do whatever they damn well please. It isn't real good to encourage them to think they can "torture" a suspect in times of "emergency". New Orleans ring a bell?

But all along, regardless of the claim posted that I was "attempting to change the subject to impeachment" (which I disproved somewhat easily, since it was the entire point of my original, and all subsequent posts) my entire gripe has been that we are GIVING UP OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION by (1) disregarding impeachment with this lunacy of passing a law to allow a civil suit when the impeachment remedy is clearly the method set out to utilize in this case; (2) failing to be keep vigil that the laws passed by Congress, and by all States, be "in pursuance of the Constitution.

We CAN get back a reasonable government. But we have to use the tools the Founders gave us, and quit falling for the con that has been sold to us, that Judges decide "what the law will be". The law is what Congress decides, and if it is Constitutional, then the Court decide that. But they are not supposed to manufacture it. And neither is the President.

Anything other than a law made in pursuance of that document, is not law. And any Judge (or other civil officer) who attempts to claim or rule otherwise, should be impeached in accordance to Article II, Section IV, and Article II, Section I.

If we give that up, then we will never get the Country back to normal.

 

[RealGun]

Why do you place so much value in impeachment? Why rush to that extreme measure when you would have a weak case to say that the President does not have good intentions for fulfilling his duties of office. Specter's move is just as effective in getting this or any other President to stop messing with bills he signs. It is also politically damaging because Specter is a Republican attempting to rein in a Republican President. Why not let it play out, or is the satisfaction of having an impeachment proceeding the real goal?

Of course, the other big issue is that Bush is doing this stuff with legal advice, and we should be questioning the competence of those advisers.