Thread: Bush's Latest Signing Statement Is Grounds for Impeachment

For Immediate Release: January 31st, 2008
Contact: Leslie Cagan, 212-868-5545; Judith Le Blanc, 212-868-5545; press@unitedforpeace.org


Peace Movement: Bush's Latest Signing Statement Is Grounds for Impeachment

New York, NY -- United for Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition with over 1400 member groups, condemns President Bush's continued arrogant and unconstitutional use of signing statements.

On Monday, Jan. 25, 2008, President Bush released a signing statement claiming the right to violate four sections of H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which he had just signed into law. These four sections: 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, Bush announced, would be "construed" in a manner "consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Among the measures Bush's latest signing statement declares the right to violate are: the establishment of a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expansion of whistleblower protections, a requirement that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, a ban on funding permanent bases in Iraq, and a ban on funding any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

Over the past seven years, the same language used by Bush on Monday, usually attributed to Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, has been the precursor to numerous violations of law by his administration, including sections of law banning the use of torture and banning the use of funds to construct permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. The president has signed laws blocking funding for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq six times, but never stopped the construction.

In January 2007, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on Bush's use of signing statements at which Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Elwood claimed that the president is free to violate any laws until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Following this hearing, the Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of Bush's signing statements and found that in a significant percentage of cases his administration was, in fact, violating the sections of law he had claimed the right to "interpret."

The U.S. Constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article I, Section 7, says that:

"every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law."

"The rule of law established by the Constitution has been undermind in an almost unnoticed revolution," said Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). "The Constitution allows the president to veto bills or sign and enforce them, not to rewrite them or to disobey them. The same document that gives the Congress the power to make every law, gives it the sole power to raise and spend money, and the sole power to declare war. The people's representatives in Congress are losing all of these powers through their failure to act on the remedy provided for precisely this situation: impeachment."

According to the U.S. State Department, 65% of Iraqis favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops. In fact, neither the Iraqi people nor the people of this country have ever supported a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, and the U.S. Congress has never approved one.

"The sooner all the troops and military contractors are home," said Cagan, "the sooner rebuilding can begin for the Iraqi nation and for our democracy."

United for Peace & Justice*:*Peace Movement: Bush's Latest Signing Statement Is Grounds for Impeachment

Discuss opcorn:

Originally Posted by Vortex

United for Peace & Justice*:*Peace Movement: Bush's Latest Signing Statement Is Grounds for Impeachment

Discuss opcorn:

No grounds for impeachment.

Originally Posted by Bourne

No grounds for impeachment.

You mean to tell me that the president can violate the legislation lawfully passed by congress?

I know this question is less important that that of him criminal, but; what they fuck is Bush thinking issue signing statements about this stuff? This screams "I am corrupt, don't trust me."

On Monday, Jan. 25, 2008, President Bush released a signing statement claiming the right to violate four sections of H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which he had just signed into law. These four sections: 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, Bush announced, would be "construed" in a manner "consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Demonstrate that what Bush did is grounds for impeachment.

Originally Posted by Bourne

Demonstrate that what Bush did is grounds for impeachment.

Answer my question.

Can the president violate the laws legally passed by Congress?

Originally Posted by Bourne

Demonstrate that what Bush did is grounds for impeachment.

Impeachment or not, this isn't how we run our country. You don't just violate any laws you wish and have a Constitutional lawyer like Addington to back you up as a base. Doesn't work like that. Together they have been doing this for years and it goes against everything that makes us "we the people." Last time I checked it wasn't "I the people."

Funny thing is Addington worked for Cheney to begin with and ended up as the signing statement goto boy for this administration's ability to get away with whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Vortex

Answer my question.

Can the president violate the laws legally passed by Congress?

Yes. Here is an example.

The Constitution commits some functions to exclusive Presidential control. For example, suppose that Congress wished to address the recurrent risk that on his way out of the Oval Office, a lame-duck President would grant pardons to his well-connected but otherwise undeserving friends. Congress might therefore enact a statute forbidding the issuance of Presidential pardons during the last year of a Presidential term of office.
Yet such a law would be clearly unconstitutional because the Constitution grants to the President the "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment," and grants to Congress no role whatsoever with respect to pardons. Thus one must conclude, as the Supreme Court did in the 1871 case of United States v. Klein, that Congress cannot limit the grounds or terms on which a President grants pardons.

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: What are the "Inherent" Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Rights

Now, you answer my question. Demonstrate that what Bush did is grounds for impeachment. Understand, I seriously dislike Bush, but it seems that everytime that he does something that a few don't like the word impeachment is bandied about rather carelessly.

Among the measures Bush's latest signing statement declares the right to violate are: the establishment of a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expansion of whistleblower protections, a requirement that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, a ban on funding permanent bases in Iraq, and a ban on funding any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

Demonstrate that..... what the fuck? It's pure evil, what are you on about somebody has to demonstrate something? Are you saying that contractor fraud against the taxpayer is GOOD? Whistelblowers shouldn't be protected? Intelligence agencies don't have to be responsible to congress? The US should control another country's natural resources and set up unwelcome military bases?

You impeach leaders because citizens want to and tell their reps to do it. No other justification necessary. In most free nations you don't even need to; The Party has the dignity and class to do it itself and call an election without people having to take to the streets in order to change the leadership. An executive term should be a maximum limit... not a minimum one.

Originally Posted by Bourne

Yes. Here is an example.



FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: What are the "Inherent" Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Rights

Now, you answer my question. Demonstrate that what Bush did is grounds for impeachment. Understand, I seriously dislike Bush, but it seems that everytime that he does something that a few don't like the word impeachment is bandied about rather carelessly.

That is a bad example Bourne. First off, he couldn't violate the law, he would have to seek the Court's ruling as to whether it was a constitutional law. Nice job at defending the mad man behind the seal.

He can't just violate the laws he doesn't like, he must have the laws declared null and void because they are unconstitutional. To violate lawfully adopted laws because he doesn't like them is a violation of the constitution and his oath of office. Seriously, I know it bugs you for folks to use the word "impeachment", but this admin has violated the laws in so many ways that impeachment is now an obligation and not a choice.

The congress critters that allow him to continue to break the laws need to be removed from office and someone needs to stand up for the rule of law, someone needs to protect the constitution.

If GWB thought that it was consistent with the constitutional authority of the President and part of his obligation to protect the nation, could he shoot Bin Laden in the Rose Garden in front of cameras or do our laws require that the court's make the determination of guilt and sentence accordingly?