Comments on: GOP congressman bucks Bush on signing statements.

By: youtube

youtube — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:06:27 +0000

Arguing with them is the same as arguing with your cat. They will scratch, they will hiss, and even on their best days they still, for reasonssohbet unbeknown to the rest of us, pee on your carpet. Hoekstra et al are racist thugs. They will not understand a document as important at the one reported Bedava mp3 indirby the A.P. What this document has said is that for years, words like Jihadists, Islamic Terrorism, Islamic Extremism etccet have done nothing but castigate Muslim men and women.

By: jarjarbush

jarjarbush — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:10:35 +0000

Defending the indefensable,

GW Bush- “I’m the commander. See, I don’t need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

By: jarjarbush

jarjarbush — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:08:01 +0000

meaning and justification

Gee Dubya replies,

“Because I says so, get over it”

By: zorbear

zorbear — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:43:20 +0000

jnibert Says:

“… It would be like the Supreme Court handing down an opinion and saying that no future court could cite that ruling as precedent.”

I’m hoping this is meant to be funny. I mean, you ARE aware that the Supreme Court has been doing this, right? Just checking…

Move along, these are not the droids you’re looking for.

By: JYD

JYD — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:18:53 +0000

Wow…just in the nick of time…it will save us from 7 more months of signing statements. Too bad it can not be retroactive.

By: ppineault

ppineault — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:13:22 +0000

Great! So after years of ’signing statement’ abuse, a Republican is only now standing up to oppose it? How convenient; just in time to affect a new Democratic president next year.

By: jnibert

jnibert — Tue, 13 May 2008 02:21:37 +0000

Signing statements mean NOTHING! They do NOT have the force of law. Bush is just deluding himself when he issues signing statements. Stating that the Executive branch will construe one provision this way and another provision that way is silly talk. It would be like the Supreme Court handing down an opinion and saying that no future court could cite that ruling as precedent. (That too is silly talk.)

A bill that is passed into law ultimately means what only the words in the law say, as decided, if necessary, by the Judicial branch. What the president states does not erase or alter any provision in any law or construe it to mean what he says it to mean. It is folly!

By: MapleStreet

MapleStreet — Tue, 13 May 2008 02:05:47 +0000

Since it is **JUST** as law and not a Constitutional Amendment, Congress can pass the law and Shrub can nullify it with a signing statement. Shrub can even classify the signing statement so that no one can know it exists.

I’m highly suspicious that this is just show. Either that, or the good Congressman is as dumb as a rock.

By: Doc Rock

Doc Rock — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:21:11 +0000

Too little, too late–throw the bum out!

By: semivoid

semivoid — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:58:41 +0000

Not that surprising. Walter Jones drove up to DC for the Dems war hearings many months ago and was the only republican to do so (he drives from NC because he cannot afford airfare from PGV). He is a libertarian and will listen to the ‘average’ voter and has a great office locally.

He has also called the Iraq war a ‘waste’ in private in mid 2007 ( in a private conversation at a public event ).

He has distanced himself from the french fry ridiculousness.

By: celtic cynic

celtic cynic — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:51:25 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with signing statements, per se. The concept was to make notes pr comments when laws were signed off.
The problem is that Dubya and his fellow fools think and claim that they can overwrite the passed legislation and declare that this is the ‘real’ law. His inept legal team should be thrown in jail along with the other perps when the time comes, soon I hope.

By: Nevar

Nevar — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:32:18 +0000

gummitch Says:

StratRat Says:

The canary’s are starting to sign

S/B Canary’s are starting to ’sing’.

No offense, but it should be “The canaries are starting to sing.”

Although they might be well-trained deaf canaries that can sign to one another.

Or maybe they’re trying to make their own statement.

By: pluege

pluege — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:23:12 +0000

there is no basis in the Constitution for signing statements. They are patently illegal with no standing. Any executive department entity enforcing a signing statement instead of the actual law should be arrested and tried for criminal activity.
.

By: flex

flex — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:18:05 +0000

“Adam Brown Says:

It’s a Republican who is pushing this bill.

They’re just trying to close the loophole that gave the President unlimited power before the presidency goes to the Democrats.”

Bingo! Always triple check a Republicans motives. These lying fascist neo-cons have proven over and over again they are not to be trusted.

By: Exit Stage Left

Exit Stage Left — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:23:21 +0000

Adam Brown Says:
They’re just trying to close the loophole that gave the President unlimited power before the presidency goes to the Democrats.

Excellent point. And…..he’s up for re-election.

By: Chris L

Chris L — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:05:07 +0000

They’ll pass this as law – then Bush will add a signing statement to it.

By: gummitch

gummitch — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:54:53 +0000

StratRat Says:

The canary’s are starting to sign

S/B Canary’s are starting to ’sing’.

No offense, but it should be “The canaries are starting to sing.”

Although they might be well-trained deaf canaries that can sign to one another.

By: Fool Zero

Fool Zero — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:50:43 +0000

“To enable a more complete public understanding of our nation’s laws, the U.S. Congress should also be able to call for the executive’s explanation of the meaning and justification for a presidential signing statement,” Jones said.

Explanation (one size fits all):

1. Separation of powers

2. Unitary Executive

3. National Security

4. Because we can.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:43:19 +0000

Buckie Boy Says:
Translation: A Democratic President will be in charge in Jan 09 and we need to stop him from doing what Bush has been doing.

Careful there or RHF will be calling you a c**t too for assuming the next President will be He and not She.
heh

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:39:31 +0000

Too little and way too late, Jones.
Where the hell have you been the last 7 years?
Oh, yeah, mostly supporting Chimpy, like a good lil Republinut. Freedom fries anyone?

Hannity’s comment on this: “It’s Al Gore’s fault.”