19 Responses

1. I think you have a problem with the Presidential powers in the War Powers Act, and not the President

2. he sould just have one signing statement that says George W. Bush can not be held responsible for anything, ever

3. Good for him, and God bless him for keeping us safe since 9-11. We are at war, the rules are not the same, nor have they ever been…presidents have always had veto power.

4. More expanison of the executive office. Under Bush’s rule.

5. Yea, this is pretty disturbing stuff….here is a good article for more info…

   http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=full

6. He meant now and all future Presidents…will you hate it so much if a Democrat is in office? Just an honest question…

   EDIT…okay, I like Non Partisan ideals…kudos. I must admit, I do feel that our media and government officials are a bit too “liberal” with their leaking of information to the public. Someone needs to be sure we don’t tip off the enemy with these leaks. There needs to be a high degree of restraint practiced when dealing with an enemy whose primary focus is interrupting our intelligence to further attack the economic power we hold over their irresponsible and oppressive governments.

7. Typical !!

   It’s like “say what you MEAN not what you meant !!”

   What the President CAN do and what he ACTUALLY does is 2 different ball games.

   It’s not limited to just the President of USA…. I think you’ll find a LOT of other Country Leaders fall into such a sterotype..

8. Each of the signing statements is, in effect, saying that to the extent a law encroaches on the president’s inherent constitutional powers, it is unconstitutional – a mere statement of fact.

   The signing statements do not have the effect of law – they are there to aid in interpretation, and relfect the President’s understanding of the law. Legislative histories do much the same.

   I don’t have a problem with it. If Bush is wrong on a specific point, then he’s wrong. The courts can sort it out. But the Congress can’t legally limit the president’s powers any more than the president can limit the powers of Congress. Witness the Tenure of Office Act.

9. this is very disturbing and completely against our founding fathers vision for this country – no one man should hold so much power.

10. Well we are at war,so I’m fine with this.

11. Chi, I suggest you study the actions of Abe Lincoln and FDR. You might also consider JFK and William Jefferson Clinton.

    The powers of the executive are not subject to Congress and never were. In times of war the only thing Congress has as a power is declaration and funding. Senators and Representatives have even been arrested for the things this congress has done.

12. Very disturbing and the unprecedented use of these “statements” by Bush is something Congress should be aggressively investigating and evaluating. It is severe weakening of the separation of powers.

13. Anti-American criminal

    Anti-American criminal

    Anti-American criminal

    Anti-American criminal

14. The last one is definitely contrary to the US Constitution as Article I Section 8 states that Congress shall have the power:

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    As for the others, see link

15. Okay already, the rules ARE the same. The constitution IS the same. There is no reason to bypass it in the interests of national security and these signing statements are a blatant attempt to do just that. You’ve bought into that whole “pre 9/11 / post 9/11 mentality” nonsense. We didn’t ignore the constitution during the 1940’s when US civilian ships could be seen burning from the beaches of the east coast, the victim of German U Boats. There’s no reason to ignore it now.

16. The House of Representatives and Congress were founded to keep the total control of one person(the president) in check. I donot believe that the president should hide anything from his advisors. He has overstepped his authority illegally according to the constitution enough already. Any suppressing of knowledge should be considered by Congress and the House thne advisement sent to the president for approval. I also agree with the last statement listed above as personal note.

17. Apparently Bush is God… oh no.. he just talks to him.
    Regardless, I guess he can do whatever he wants.. and that is exactly what he has been doing.

18. There is a dead rat in the kitchen. It stinks to high heaven.

    It makes me wonder what in the world does Bush have to hide from the American people. These 4 statements says he absolutely has something to hide and he doesn’t want the American people to know just how much of a warmonger and crook he really is.

19. Anyone who thinks that these signing statements are a good thing, does not understand what the checks and balances that our forefathers put into the constitution are for. These signing statements are totally unconstitutional, and give the executive branch far too much power, which is dangerous to this country and to the people! *sm*