WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is opening hearings this week into what has become the White House's favorite tool for overriding Congress in the name of wartime national security.
"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," the committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."
Apparently, enough to challenge more than 750 statutes passed by Congress, far more than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that number, but points out that Bush is far from the nation's first chief executive to issue them.
Okay, this is scary. He’s officially above the law. Even his own party is worried.
Read more...
3 comments:
This just the kind of liberal media bias I have come to expect from (FILL IN NAME OF DIRTY LIBERAL AMERICA HATING NEWS ORGANIZATION HERE). Your types never focus on the positive, like how many laws the president is not breaking. Did you know he didn’t get busted for jaywalking, insider trading, carrying an explosive on a plane or wrestled a bear in Alabama (which is against the law).
So where is the big news article about that? Ha, I didn’t think you would have an answer for that.
*I would like to thank Faux News for having this handy dandy reply ready to help the ditto heads fight back*
;)
It's astounding that people aren't more outraged about the stuff the President pulls.
Have you noticed that when the press does something such as expose their intense bending of the rules, B&C will stand up and be very angry, announce that the paper has 'compromised national security' and 'has put american lives in jepordy'. I still can't believe they can say it with a straight face. They exposed an undercover CIA agent to get back at her husband. There is no question whether that compromised American lives, it's just that if other spies were hauled off and killed b/c of it, we'll never know.
People (i.e. that teeny majority that tilted the last two elections) aren't outraged because they truly believe two things: 1) the administration has their best interests at heart and 2) people who disagree with the administration have an "agenda." How do you combat that? I have no idea. What else has to happen for people to say this is too much?
Post a Comment