http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy
From the artical:
Quote
The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.
No! Really?!
What a suprise! Why, this is almost as revealing as
From the artical:
Quote
Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers\' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.
What factoids will be unearthed next. It is simply amazing what can make it into print if years of dilegence are applied to gathering ...
facts....
gkg,
I would wish that you did not take my comments personal but instead took them to heart. In a nutshell, the answer to your query can be rephrased in a very simple question.
Why?
Why add this provision? Think of how reactive these people have been. Do you really believe this provision is foresight?
ah, but my question was meant more as a rhetorical thought prod for others. i know he exceeds the bounds... but an awful lot of people seem to be rather comfortable letting him continue his expansive power gobble.
Yes, why indeed?
Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements following the past three administrations. By Cooper\'s count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law. That number, by all account, is now over 700 challenges. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.
Perhaps this is why they find it necessary to knock the balance of government in their favor. They already know they\'ve won 2008?!
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20061001elephant_1.cfm
won is a misnomer...