Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (4428)	11/9/2006 8:21:38 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 10087

the shame is the joke. i doubt it was. more like a slip.

To: cirrus who wrote (4428)	11/9/2006 10:31:04 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

A good case can be made that Bush hasn't exceeded any constitutional limits. I suppose the heat of the moment also caused Bush to attempt to nullify the legislative branch by attaching all those "signing statements" explaining that he reserves the right to essentially ignore legislation he just signed? Signing statements don't even come close to nullifying the legislative branch. And there is nothing wrong with a president stating the some part of a piece of legislation exceeded congress's authority. Bush isn't the first person to do so. Carter used such signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton used such signing statements many times. Bush II is using them more often than any previous president, but the idea is hardly new. Here is a link to a statement by Clinton's justice department defending the practice. usdoj.gov Also see Message 22862942 Message 22816043 Message 22816315 Message 22816523 I do fault Bush for signing the laws rather then vetoing them if he thinks that they are in part unconstitutional. OTOH Message 22824077