on Congress ... with unitary executive who needs it. (March 25, 2006 4:17 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
Posted by: Good Will
So apparantly that whole bit about Legistlative branch writing law and executive branch carrying them out that written in the Constitution does not really matter to Mr. Bush. I mean who needs to actually sign laws that were passed by Congres when you just add a little addendum that says: "Hey, screw you guys, I am doing what I want". Any of you "conservatives" want to tell me why is it the president can just randomly make up laws. Anyone? Anyone at all? It used to be conservatives were about upholding traditions like, oh lets say, Constitution, but who needs that nowadays. What exactly are you guys conserving? This is an actual question mind ya.
--snip--
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
--snip--
Article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
--snip--
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
--snip--
Article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/