Bush signing statement on Sudan divestment criticized.
By on Feb 9th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Bush signing statement on Sudan divestment criticized.
The Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage writes, “Lawmakers and human rights activists sharply criticized President Bush yesterday for issuing a signing statement that they said has undermined congressional efforts” to pressure the Sudanese government to crack down on the genocide in Darfur. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said:
The president was entitled to oppose the bill, the president was entitled to have the State Department lobby against it. He was even entitled to veto it. What he is not entitled to do is, having failed in those efforts, and having declined to veto it, to then unilaterally undermine it by a signing statement which will vitiate its intended effect.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
hoo-rah! charlie savage… another hero!
February 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pmBush loves murder, just loves it. He gets off on human sufering. he’s the sickest leader in the world currently.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pmHOO-RAH!!! BARNEY FRANK!
i LOVE it when he gets like that!
February 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm.
Boo-Raw…
Barney Frank spouting off but what else will he do?
Frank = All words, no action!
.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:34 pmThank you Rep. Frank for adding “vitiate” to my vocabulary.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pmThe Bush administration opposed the legislation, telling Congress that while the White House shared its concern about Darfur, the legislation would undercut the president’s constitutional powers over foreign affairs. Congress passed the bill anyway, by unanimous votes in both chambers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have to disagree here because America has lost much of its presence due to the lack of a foreign policy and its hegemonic ideology and our government is ignored more and more each day.
And what in our constitution gives our president power over foreign affairs? The framers of the constitution said we should not become involved in foreign affairs. We, America, lead by example, or did, and not by force.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pmWhat does this legislation really have to do with foreign affairs? It authorizes states to decide what companies they don’t want to invest in for their pension funds. Do states not have this power?
February 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pmFrank used “vitiate” on purpose, toasterhead. He knew it would confuse Botch and the GOOPers. Hell, our resident trolls are prolly trying to figger it out right now.
“Vitiate… vitiate… is that a good word or a bad word? Well, it kind of sounds like ‘vittles’… mebbe it’s sumpin we can eat!”
February 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmWhat’s worse?
Earmarks or signing statements?
I suppose it depends if you are GWB or not.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:59 pmFrank used “vitiate†on purpose, toasterhead. He knew it would confuse Botch and the GOOPers. Hell, our resident trolls are prolly trying to figger it out right now.
“Vitiate… vitiate… is that a good word or a bad word? Well, it kind of sounds like ‘vittles’… mebbe it’s sumpin we can eat!â€
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I doubt if the trolls really spend that kind of quality evaluative time.
I’m sure they read the name “Barney Frank” and instantly decide that every word he uses is EEEE-vil.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:06 pmAnd that it must have something to do w/ “teh gays”, ralph.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 9, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Oh, no doubt. No doubt at all.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:13 pmIt must really, really suck being a troll these days, and having to keep defending Botch, no matter what. I was listening to Tom Hartmann on the radio yesterday broadcasting live from that ridiculous conservative convention. No one even wanted to say Botch’s name.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pmBush uses signing statements when he doesn’t want the bad PR for altering the bill – in this case, whimping out. He doesn’t have the cajones to veto it and he hopes that the american people will never learn of his personal editing job on it.
Let’s stop fooling around with this demented menace to our democracy. The time for impeachment is right now. A year is a very long time for a lunatic to drag us deeper into the bowels of destruction. We cannot continue to abet Bush’s criminal spree.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pmPlease read the post before you start banging on your keyboard like a chimpanzee.
Comment by Gin — February 9, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Best to take one’s own advice, f_ckwit.
“…the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” arguing that there was nothing improper about the Sudan act.”
I won’t hold my breath for you to apologize to toasterhead.
Dismissed.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pmComment by Zooey — February 9, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Ouch, Zoo. Did that smack down hurt your hand as much as it hurt Cheap Gin’s face?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 9, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
I used my ass-kicking boot. ;)
February 9th, 2008 at 8:13 pmComment by Gin — February 9, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
And WHO is Barney Frank’s “friend?”
Patricia Wald, the former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Uh huh…
February 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pmBTW, this is from the U.S. Constitution, Section 8:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Any other questions Gin Blossom?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:18 pmOh, here’s a link to the Constitution. You might want to familiarize yourself with it, Ginny.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pmWhy does GIN wish to abrogate the balance of power the constitition gives?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pmYour smokin tonite Zoo =)
February 9th, 2008 at 8:23 pmCome on, Zoo! Take it easy on Cheap Gin. You’re makin’ its face all bloody.
Oh, hell, go ahead. Do your worst.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pmI’m sorry, you must not have gotten the memo. Whatever Bush wants to do, he can do. He’s King George.
God, can we survive another 9 months of this man.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:31 pmI finally got the troll teeth out of the sole of my boot.
Ahhhhhh…. :-)
February 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pmBTW, party at TheZoo tonight. Y’all come over.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:40 pmSay again, Cheap Gin? I couldn’t make out what you’re saying, what with all the blood gurgling ing your mouth and all.
Careful — you’re getting the floor all bloody too.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:45 pmThe Court will decide.
Comment by Gin — February 9, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Bush broke the law, and you’re saitng for the court to determine that, is that right? Too bad Bush broke the court; our supreme cpourt can no longer be trusted since they destroyed the constitution with the shame of ‘00 and the appointment of the worst president in US history. you can’t sell that treasonous tripe any more, gin. go back to your drunken lies.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:49 pmHere’s a tidbit: gin is made with the berry (bitter taste) of the Hawthorne called sloe (yes, the same pronunciation as slow).
February 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pmMemo to chymp. Sign or veto, then STFU.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pmSigning statements have no legal authority.
Barney “I had a male prostitute ring running out of my house†Frank criticized the president? Stop the presses! LOL
Comment by Pat2 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
More lies. that’s all you have? Barney had zero to do with a prostitute ring, and y8ou know it. No facts from you, ever, nothing but bullshit smears and lies. You’re PAThetic.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pmExcept it was in HIS house, and his boy toy was the ringleader. LOL
Comment by Pat2 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
and he knew nothing about it. idiot. You can certainly smear with the best of the repuke liars, but your pathetic lies have already been smoked out. You are such a loser, it’s really strange that you haven’t blown your own head off. maybe you tried and missed. Or maybe you tried and hit; that would explain your ignorance and pathology.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:08 pmpoor pat2 has nobody to talk with except her betters here. maybe she’ll learn something with this barrage of truth she’s getting, but it seems unlikely that she has any learning capacity at all.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:09 pmFlag the troll. It hasn’t been on-topic once.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:12 pmYeah, right. If your live-in boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of your house, you wouldn’t know it? Wait, maybe you wouldn’t. *LOL*
Comment by Pat2 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
well, if i were working as many hours as Barney frank does, it’s entirely possible that many things could be hidden, which is exactly what happend, you poor, stupid fool. So how do you explain Bush and Jimmy-Jeff Gannon, a male prostitute with hundreds stayovers at the White House? it certainly isnt Bush’s habit to do any work. Was he a top or a bottom, your president?
February 9th, 2008 at 10:12 pmCome on, pat2, explain your president screwing a male prostitute. this should be good. LOL!
February 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pmTrolls do not dissent. Trolls disrupt threads, and stink up the place.
Got anything ON TOPIC?
February 9th, 2008 at 10:14 pmYou have no dissent, you’re a loyal Bush cocksucker, like Gannon. if you had any patriotism, you’d be dissenting the behavior of the traitors in the White House.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:14 pmCome on, troll, how about Gannon and Bushie? Who’s the top in that relationship? it’s quite a liberal attitude to accept your president’s secret homosexual affair, I must say.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:15 pmooh, avoiding the painful truth of your cocksucker-in-chief’s little male hooker, pat2? No surprise; cowardice is a defining characteristic of the right.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:16 pmI’ve been called worse by better trolls.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pmLefty Patriot’s slanders say nothing about the president, but much about poor demented Lefty Patriot.
Comment by Pat2 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
hey, i didn’t invite a male prostitute to stay overnight countless times in my house. that’s your president, george ‘reach-around” bush, pervert-in-chief. maybe you can explain this lurid behavior. most likely y8ou’ll avoid the subject, and try to make me out to be the problem, when it was your cocksucker-in-chief bedding down with a male hooker. i don;t blame y8ou for avoiding the issue; it’s pretty embarrassing, especially in light of all bush’s other monstrous failures, like 9/11, Bin laden, NOLA, Social security, etc.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pmThat’s Barney and friends opinion, not a SC ruling. Bush sign the law with a statement of concern as to its constitutionality. The Court will decide.
Comment by Gin — February 9, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Ohhhh – so now you guys like activist judges? How convenient!
February 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pmSure, explain the previous Supreme Court ruling.
Comment by Gin — February 9, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
Oh c’mon. I bet if you got somebody to read it to you real slow, you’d spot the difference. You can do it!!
February 10th, 2008 at 12:41 amAnyway, back on topic:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
SO, then our state’s desire to ONLY do business with Cos that do NOT do business violates this how???? We are regulating commerce WITH A BUSINESS not with a STATE.
Fu(king DUH!
February 10th, 2008 at 9:12 amArticle I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
The original thought behind this article, was so that states COULD NOT IMPOSE thier own tariffs and taxes on goods from other states. TO tell a state that they HAVE to invest or do business with Company X is ridiculous on its face.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:13 amIt doesn’t vitiate its effect. His signing statement cannot be legislation because that is clearly unconstitutional and if some damn body would get this into court even Bush’s right wing kiss ass judges would have to rule against him. Is anybody with some courage in congress gonna do anything to fight this right wing extremist president?!
February 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pmWHERE ARE THE COWARDS IN CONGRESS!! HELLO!! ARE YOU OUT THERE? WE NEED YOU TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY. HELLO CONGRESS ARE YOU OUT THERE.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:29 pm