Wait! Since when could Bush do THAT?! (hell, America, experience)

[JMoum04]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/...h/bush_privacy

Bush says he can edit security reports:
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.

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."

Okay, I have two questions. One, since when did the presidents get the power to edit bills as they see fit. It wasn't too long ago that I took government and I sure as hell never learned about that in there.

And two, who's bright idea was it to allow the presidents to edit bills as they see fit?

I'm sure anyone, no matter what their political position is, would agree with me when I say that this is a very bad idea.

[MidnightBlue]

Rules of the Bush Administration

1. For reasons of national security, the president must be empowered to do anything he sees fit to do.

2. Anyone who questions Rule 1 is helping the terrorists.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by jmoum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/...h/bush_privacy


Okay, I have two questions. One, since when did the presidents get the power to edit bills as they see fit. It wasn't too long ago that I took government and I sure as hell never learned about that in there.

And two, who's bright idea was it to allow the presidents to edit bills as they see fit?

I'm sure anyone, no matter what their political position is, would agree with me when I say that this is a very bad idea.

You don't understand, Bush has been elected to the office of "Decider". So he gets to decide what he wants in the bills and what he wants out. We don't have presidents, anymore, we have the "Decider". Bush learned about all this when he went to Yale, the Skull and Bones people taught him all about it. Did you go to Yale?

Then SHUT UP!


*smile*

[JMoum04]

Man, screw that. I'm moving to Thailand. At least they have the common sense to kick out the corrupt leaders.

[CaptainXeroid]

One thing to remember about 'signing statements' is that they are opinions of how the President is going to carry out the law after he signs it. The statements do not have the force of law, and do not represent an 'editing' of a law. Theoretically, a sitting President could be impeached and possibly removed if Congress determines that he is not enforcing the law as they intended.

Signing statements have been around probably since Washngton, but they have only made the news recently because "...The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power..."

[Gentoo]

The president is about to hit bedrock in digging his own grave.... quick! Someone throw him another shovel!

[Djamila]

Scary, though. I don't think even Vladimir Putin has that much a strange-hold on the Russian government?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Djamila

Scary, though. I don't think even Vladimir Putin has that much a strange-hold on the Russian government?

Probably not. For a democracy, and an influencial force in world politics, the USA seems to give way to much power to a single man.

I mean, in the UK we have a Prime Minister - i'm sorry i don't know what the government in Bosnia is like, i assume it's the same as ours - the PM is like a President in a way, but a lot less powerful, he can't do anything off his own back, he needs the support of the House of Commons and the support of the House of Lords.

The US President often seems to be in the position of Dictator, to me anyway.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Probably not. For a democracy, and an influencial force in world politics, the USA seems to give way to much power to a single man...

First, remember that America is not a democracy. Second, one single man is NOT supposed to have that much power. The problem is that with singing statements, he is usurping the checks and balances written into the Constitution.

[Djamila]

Bosnia is divided into Kantons (roughly the equivalent of American states), a