( SNIP )
Federal agencies ignored 30 percent of the laws Bush objected to in signing statements last year, according to a report released today by the Government Accountability Office. In 2006, President Bush issued signing statements for 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills passed by Congress, claiming a right to bypass a total of 160 provisions in them.
In a sample set of 19 provisions, the GAO found that �10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine.�
The report, which was requested by House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-WV), gives the first indication of the impact that President Bush�s signing statements have had on the enforcement of laws passed by Congress.
In a statement, Byrd said the report shows the Bush administration�s desire to grab as much power as possible:
The White House cannot pick and choose which laws it follows and which it ignores. When a president signs a bill into law, the president signs the entire bill. The Administration cannot be in the business of cherry picking the laws it likes and the laws it doesn�t. This GAO opinion underscores the fact that the Bush White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people�s branch of government to the sidelines�.We must continue to demand accountability and openness from this White House to counter this power grab.
Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements challenging over 1,100 laws, claiming that he has the right to bypass them if they interfere with his alleged presidential powers. Though signing statements have been utilized by most presidents, Bush has used them to object to more laws than all previous presidents combined.
Here are a few of the laws Bush has controversially issued signing statements about:
- In 2005, after Congress passed a law outlawing the torture of detainees, Bush issued a signing statement saying that he would �construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief,� which experts say means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions.
- In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Administration in response to FEMA�s poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. When Bush signed the law, he issued a statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions and appoint a FEMA chief based on whatever qualifications he wanted.
- In 2006, Bush signed a statement saying he would view a ban on �the transfer of nuclear technology to India if it violates international non proliferation guidelines� as �advisory.� Indian newspapers reported that the government of India took note of Bush�s statement, �raising the possibility it would not take the ban seriously.�
The GAO report makes a point of noting that although �the agencies did not execute the provisions as enacted,� it cannot necessarily be concluded that �agency noncompliance was the result of the President�s signing statements.� It does, however, provide creedence to claims that confusion created by differing congressional and presidential interpretations of laws could lead increased laxity in the proper enforcement of the law.
UPDATE: �We expect to continue to use statements where appropriate, on a bill-by-bill basis,� White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Some PROOF of humans losing the ability to THINK.
outlawing the LORD
planing a trip that requires planning thrir rescue
flushing toilets into drinking water
finding hot coffee a legal hazard
killing themselves drinking water
complain because they can't drive and use a blackberry
calling the internet the wild wild west
I could go on but you get the idea..paper is NOT money duh
"...What does it say in the Geneva Bible or..."
An interesting sidenote on the Geneva Bible.
If memory serves, it was the Geneva Bible that had margins where extra words could be added. Anyway in the margins it said it was ok to disobey the king. King James(forget the roman numeral)did not appreciate this and started a new bible making the Geneva version no longer the main bible. In any event that is how the King James version of the bible came about.
In your personal comments we want to ask you to add a specific objection -- a different one for each day. Yesterday we asked you to tell your Senators that . . .
You've heard rumors that earmarks are being offered in return for voting yes on the immigration bill, and you're going to be very ANGRY if that turns out to be true. If you sent this message yesterday, thank you. If you did not, please do so now HERE.
Today, send another message, and use your personal comments to ask your Senators to oppose Senator Schumer's Biometric Social Security Card amendment. You can do so HERE.
Tomorrow we'll be back with another message for you to send on this issue. In the meantime, could we ask you to put in a little extra effort today, and also send a message calling for the repeal of the REAL ID Act. Tell them you know New Hampshire has refused to participate, and you think it's time to just repeal REAL ID entirely. You can send that message HERE.
This is important because the more objections the Senate receives to national ID card schemes the more likely it is that the REAL ID Act will be repealed, that provisions related to it will be stripped from the immigration bill, and that Schumer's Biometric Social Security Card amendment will also be defeated.
You can send your "Repeal the REAL ID Act" message HERE.
PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE. Almost no one is going to like the idea of a Biometric Social Security card, and we need everyone's help to defeat them.
Finally, the Producers of "9/11 Press for Truth" have given us permission to post the video on our website, where you can watch it, and make your own evaluation of it for free. The video is posted here.
If you would like to have a "9/11 Press for Truth" DVD mailed to your home, here's how to get it . . .
If you're an existing monthly credit card pledger in good standing as of June 15, 2007, all you have to do is increase your monthly pledge by at least $1, and we'll send one to you.
If you're NOT an EXISTING monthly credit card pledger then you can start a monthly credit card pledge of at least $6, or make a one-time credit card donation of $35 or more, and we'll send you the DVD. (Sorry, for technical reasons we cannot make this offer for PayPal pledges or donations).
You can make your contribution here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Please share with concerned friends . . .
Quote of the Day:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Sam Adams
Subject: Biometric Social Security cards
Senator Chuck Schumer wants to amend the immigration bill to require you to get a new Social Security card with biometric information imbedded in it. Creating this new card would . . .
* Cost $9 billion (before the usual government cost over-runs)
* Require the Social Security administration to hire an additional 60,000 employees
* Require you to spend time getting the new card
* Require you to give the central government sensitive personal information
In the past only criminals had to supply the state with things like fingerprints, DNA, or retinal scans. Now, if Schumer gets his way, law abiding citizens will have to do it too, just for the privilege of earning a living. Meanwhile . . .
The people this card is supposed to control will continue to live underground, work on the black market without papers, or forge documents. The real control will be over you, not them.
So why does Schumer want this Biometric Social Security card on top of the REAL ID?
It could be because the REAL ID Act is in big trouble and the politicians are looking for an alternative that doesn't require the cooperation of state governments. After all . . .
New Hampshire just voted to NOT COOPERATE with the REAL ID requirement!
This New Hampshire decision is a big victory for our side, but a real challenge to Big Brother politicians like Schumer. Biometric Social Security cards may soon take the place of the REAL ID, unless we stop the whole thing dead in its tracks, right now.
This Biometric Social Security card is evidence that the politicians are going to come at us from all angles. If they can't come in through the door (REAL ID), then they'll try to come in through a window (Biometric Social Security cards). We need to use the same tactic to defeat this tactic, fighting fire with fire.
We need to attack these Big Brother proposals from all angles. That's why we're devoting the entire week to defeating the immigration bill. We need for you to send a new message about this each day. Every message will ask the Senate to oppose the immigration bill as a whole. But then . . .
Doesn't it make you wonder why it is that if the government can simply ignore the laws, why are we obligated to adhere to them?
After all they get their authority from us, WE THE PEOPLE, don't they? By myself I lack the authority to tell anyone to do anything. When I get two or three of my neighbors to agree with me, we still lack the authority to tell anyone to do anythng. In fact if everyone in my county was of the same mind they would still lack the authority to tell anyone to do anything.
So, where exactly does governmental authority arise? It certainly is not power that we can imbue it with if we do not have it ourselves, is it? If so, how many likeminded people must actively and consciously act to imbue this power of the mob to those that provide the subsequent service through the barrel of a gun?