Bush defies Congress, says he has right to change Homeland Security bills

rick_reno

Moderator
King George is at it again.

WASHINGTON - President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department’s reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it’s appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

“There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance,” she said. “It could be any number of things.”

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers’ ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

“The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed,” said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens’ privacy of any agency in the federal government.

New ID cards in the works
Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers’ names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there’s a match. They make sure transportation workers’ backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department’s privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers’ personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush’s signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he’d disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security.”

His rationale was that it “rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.”
 
"King" George? Checks and balances and separation of powers have been supported by every President.
 
rick_reno said:
"But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

Agreed. The president has a genuine and legal right to oversee Homeland Security department reports. Further, since his record at protecting us, domestically, from terrororism via Homeland Security programs, is better than anyone else in the government, I support him wholeheartedly and ethusiastically.
 
"King" George? Checks and balances and separation of powers have been supported by every President.

You don't have a balance of powers when the same party controls the Legislative and Executive branches.

badbob
 
Last edited:
badbob said:
You don't have a balance of powers when the same party controls the Legislative and Executive branches.

Well if that other minority party wasn't so hatred by voters they might win an election occasionally!

:)
 
You don't have a balance of powers when the same party controls the Legislative and Executive branches.
You might want to inform Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who is one of the major and most vocal opponents of Presidential signing statements.
 
Look at the voting records of some of these "vocal opponents". It's all a show, smoke and mirrors. "Magic Bullet" Specter is a sold out stooge. He's no friend to America.

badbob
 
"The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power."

Notice that they don't say he CAN'T do it, just that he does it too often. Where were these groups when the other Presidents were appending statements?

john
 
The bottom line is Bush has made far more use of these signing statement than anyone before him. I see it as a violation of the system, started in earnest by Reagan I believe.

All those out there applauding Bush for adding one signing statement after another better be ready for the next set of Democratic Administration signing statements!

Better to have NONE. If the Legislation is no good Veto it. These signing statements let too many things get passed. I would rather a governemetn that gets hardly anything done than one that whips legislation through with regularity.
 
No the bottom line is we haven't been attacked since 9/11--and it is a wonder with all the restrictions the Democrats want to impose. For those of you who just want to bash Bush at every move despite staying safe for 5+ years, I can only quote you a line from a famous movie-----"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way."
 
king George

"The bottom line is Bush has made far more use of these signing statement than anyone before him."

***Bush's signing statements make a mockery of anything he signs. It's kind of like signing something with fingers crossed behind his back: sure, I'll abide by these regulations (wink wink, unless I decide not to!) So what's the point of Congress?

As to the lack of attacks here since 9/11: ever think it might be because Bush and his policies are the best recruiting tool the bad guys could ever hope for?

I'm pretty disgusted that the media and Congress are falling all over themselves about the current sex scandal, while studiously ignoring the fact that some of our most important constitutional rights have effectively been tossed out the window. I'm thinking of habeus corpus, for starters. American citizens aren't exempt to having zero legal rights if the government declares them enemies of the state. No charges, no evidence, no right to challenge detention, no right to a proper trial or legal representation. But the really big news is a sex scandal! Why am I surprised?
 
Last edited:
Note how even those who hold the 2A near and dear to their hearts are willing to sign over those "other freedoms" in the interest of security...

I routinely hear people calling for an official declared war on terrorism. GOd help us if it happens. First, it will never end. There will never be a declared end to the war. Second, while that war goes on, forevere mind you, many other freedoms disappear and the road is open to removing more.

No thank you! The Declaration of War and the powers it grants the government was always meant for use against a true enitity and conflict that could be brought to a conclusion. Don't be fooled into signing away freedoms. Even if you believe Bush and the Republicans are pure as the driven snow you never know who is going to follow them. The powers you give this government are retained by the next.
 
As to the lack of attacks here since 9/11: ever think it might be because Bush and his policies are the best recruiting tool the bad guys could ever hope for?


???????????????????????Seems to me there were plenty of recruits on 9/11 to carry out the task. So now there will be more because we struck back? Don't see any attacks being carried out here with all those new recruits---we are fighting them there for now. I guess the part about muslim extremeists wanting to kill us---ALL of us, because of their religious beliefs is less of a factor then Bush being in office.:rolleyes:
 
If you quote an article provide its URL. An article without attribution is worthless. I won't waste my time reponding unless is see the source. :mad:
 
"So now there will be more because we struck back? "

***Who did we strike back at--the hapless Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11? Or did we attack Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers actually came from--did I miss it somehow? Sure, we attacked Afghanistan but we managed to miss Osama. We haven't destroyed Pakistan, where the Taliban originated and where they are making a huge comeback. In fact, Pakistan is called our ally in our endless "war or terror." Meanwhile, Iraq is a total nightmare, with death squads killing hundreds daily under the noses of what passes for a government we are aiding and abetting.
 
pitz96....

We haven't destroyed Pakistan, where the Taliban originated and where they are making a huge comeback. In fact, Pakistan is called our ally in our endless "war or terror."

Actually the Taliban came about after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If anything Pakistan may have funded the Afghans more than anything. As for Pakistan being an "ally" this is absurd, hearing any of the Republicans claim "Pakistan is our ally" is rather asinine. Truth is Paskistan is a reluctant "ally" held between a rock and a hard place because on one end, its citizens are ready to kill Musharaff should Osama be taken, and on the other Musharaff fears an attack by force or economcially by the U.S. should he decide not to capture Osama. Either way, Pakistan is in the worst shape out of all the other regions.

For those who love to praise our "oh so mighty, and infalliable" legislators for "protecting" us. Let it be known that they pass "security" bills in order to arrest, detain, and spy on us if we're even SUSPECTED of terrorism, by we, I mean THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! NOT SOME GOON OUT IN THE DESERTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST, I MEAN HERE ON YOUR OWN SOIL. No right to trial by jury, no right to a lawyer, indefinate detention. Awesome job protecting Americans right? Oh so why isn't there news of anyone being victim of it? Simple, it's kept secret for "national security". A little tin foil thought on my part? Maybe, but could I be further from a possible truth? You decide. Now I have to say, that it is true, if legislation is passed by this ruling group, the next group to sieze power will definately not give it up. Why should they since they have further consolidated their power at the cost of the Constitution? Sometimes there are days where I feel I'd much rather be fighting on the streets for freedom than to sit complicitly watching things turn into a police state, and I'd rather fight religious fanatics on our soil than put up with bullying domestic governments who pass rules to "protect" us. For those who see the Constitution as excess as long as it allows them to keep the Second Amendment, please consider, the Second Amendment is SUPPOSED to defend the other amendments. I guess we as citizens aren't doing our duty are we? Hey why's there a red stamp on the Bill of Rights? And what is V-O-I-D?


Epyon

EDIT: Sorry if I seem over the edge, just needed to rant.
 
All those out there applauding Bush for adding one signing statement after another better be ready for the next set of Democratic Administration signing statements!


If what you're saying is that the democrats won't hold themselves above doing what they say Bush is doing wrong, then... :barf:

If they are saying now that they will do what Bush is doing (which they say is WRONG) as soon as they get the chance, why should we listen to them now? They're just forewarning us that their criticism is strictly partisan, because it is a criticism of an action they themselves plan to take. (Oh, but when they do it, it'll be okay, because it's the second wrong that makes the right. :rolleyes: )


-azurefly
 
So now there will be more because we struck back? "

You raised the question. Just what exactly invokes recruiting tools for the terrorists? Since obviously there are/were no terrorists groups or training going on in Iraq then who exactly are the new recruits and why would they care about Iraq? Iraq is such a total nightmare that re-enlists are at an all time high--guess they believe in what they are doing. Remember--there isn't a draft here. If you had any concept of what was going on, you would realize that Iran is the 1 who wants to disrupt the middle east. Based on your comment, you have a problem with us invading Iraq, but not Saudi Arabia I take it. Again, the choice is to fight them here or fight them there and if we leave Iraq, God help us. Again, doesn't matter what we do, say, don't say, don't do etc...they want to kill us all.
 
www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

"So far as we have been able to determine, Presidential signing statements that purported to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon -- if indeed it existed at all -- before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. However, earlier Presidents did use signing statements to raise and address the legal or constitutional questions they believed were presented by the legislation they were signing. Examples of signing statements of this kind can be found as early as the Jackson and Tyler Administrations, and later Presidents, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, also engaged in the practice."
 
Back
Top