Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 158 (334976)
07-24-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
07-24-2006 5:37 PM


Re: the New World Order?
Tell me, rand, how many presidential signing statements did any other president other than Bush do while in office?
How many has Bush done?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 07-24-2006 5:37 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 158 (334977)
07-24-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
07-24-2006 5:37 PM


Re: the New World Order?
quote:
Clinton squashed a lot of stuff, or his administration. Reno, for example,squashed all independent investigations into China-gate and deliberately refused to enforce Congressional subpoenas so that hundreds of witnesses fled the country.
Yeah, I remember all the Republican outrage when Reno was made Attorney General, because they said she wasn't independent enough and had ties too close to Clinton.
Now it's simply accepted that Gonzales is pretty much Bush's personal lawyer and will do exactly as Bush tells him to do.
But anyway, you're missing the point.
Reno, who was the Attorney General may have blocked some investigations, but that's sort of her job, isn't it?
Bush personally intervened and blocked an investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 07-24-2006 5:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 07-24-2006 9:49 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 158 (335119)
07-25-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
07-24-2006 9:49 PM


Re: the New World Order?
How many signing statements, rand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 07-24-2006 9:49 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 158 (335308)
07-25-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-25-2006 2:08 PM


Re: the New World Order?
How many signing statements has Bush made during his presidency, rand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-25-2006 2:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 07-25-2006 8:16 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 158 (335322)
07-25-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
07-25-2006 8:16 PM


how many signing statements?
quote:
I don't know.
I'll tell you.
He has made over 750 constitutional challenges in 130 presidential signing statements.
That means that he has declared himself exempt from over 750 laws that congress has passed.
Seven hundred and fifty!
From the wiki:
The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[3] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges.
From the Boston Globe:
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 07-25-2006 8:16 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 158 (335649)
07-27-2006 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
07-26-2006 8:05 PM


signing statements
What about them, rand?
Bush has declared in these statements that he is exempt from over 750 laws that congress has passed, including laws prohibiting torturing prisoners of war, laws prohibiting government interference with scientific research, etc.
I think that we know why Bush has only used his veto once.
He just signs everything into law, but anything he doesn't want to personally follow, he just makes a signing statement and declares himself above the law.
Tell me, what do you think of a president who thinks himself above over seven hundred and fifty laws?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 07-26-2006 8:05 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 158 (336868)
07-31-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by randman
07-30-2006 9:25 PM


Clinton is NOT the topic of this thread
All of this about Clinton is lovely, but it is OFF TOPIC!!!!
The topic is George H.W. Bush and signs that he is inching the US towards a fascist state.
Saying anything at all about Clinton is completely irrelevant.
Randman, will you please address my post #44 in this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 9:25 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 140 of 158 (337451)
08-02-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
08-02-2006 1:04 PM


Re: Bump for Bush Supporters
quote:
Historians of the future will likely see Bush as a well-meaning president most notable for shepherding the country through the period after the largest ever foreign attack on American soil, and for overreacting to external threats in ways that threatened world peace and stability, and that placed undue and unwarranted pressure on civil liberties. He is neither devil nor angel, and definitely not a fascist.
I think they will also note his unprecedented grab for greatly expanded executive branch powers, excused by the "we're at war" line.
If he and his congress aren't fascists, they are certainly authoritarian, which is just this side of fascism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 08-02-2006 1:04 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024