I have no idea why, but that just strikes me as intensely... weird. Not bad, or good, just... kind of... weird. Maybe I'm just not awake enough yet, but aren't there other things to be suing him over? What exactly will the consequences be if his little bullshit-dance is found unconstitutional? That doesn't seem clear, but I've been awake maybe half an hour so my brain hasn't fully booted yet. My Internet-browsing-to-wake-up habit is working against me.
That said, Arlen Specter has always sort of confused me. He doesn't seem terribly Republican most of the time.
Bush has attached signing statements to over 130 pieces of legislation but those 130 pieces actually comprise at least 750 challenges. That (the number of challenges) is more then all of the previous presidents combined.
Also, it probably violates the concept, if not the actual seperation of powers. You see, Legislative Branch (the House and Senate) writes the laws that govern the country, the Executive Branch (the President) determines if those laws will be enacted (by passing them or vetoing them), and the Judicial Branch determines if those laws are constitutional. Okay, that's the simple version, at least.
But these signing statements... what could be so bad about them? Well, here's the deal. When a piece of legislation passes both the House and Senate and goes to the president's desk, he's only supposed to do one of three things. Sign it, veto it, or take no action. Now, it's not like he's breaking new ground by attaching signing statments. They've been used by presidents as far back as James Monroe. But they've usually been things like how the laws should be applied (i.e. how the appropriate federal agencies should apply the law and so forth).
Bush's signing statements are more of a "here's how the law should be applied, regardless of what Congress thinks, and don't worry, it's constitutional because I say so. After all, I'm the President.", thereby choosing to rewrite laws and apply their constitutionality, which is Congress's and the Supreme Court's jobs, respectively.
One of his big examples is this one, applied to the McCain Detainee Amendment (which prohibited cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody - i.e. the torture ban).
The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.
Translated, this signing statement means the President is reserving the right to waive the 'torture ban' whenever he feels it is necessary.
And that shit ain't right. Not in this case. Hell, probably not in the majority of the cases where Bush has tacked on signing statements. It's pretty much a usurption of powers normally reserved for Congress and the Supreme Court. It's a power play. And that shit ain't right either.
Yeah, I'm awake now, I follow. Though having it broken down like that also makes it more clearly uncool.
Still sort of strikes me as biting his right ass-cheek when we shoot be aiming for his right ventricle, but, hell, for him that is pretty damned impressive. Maybe I'll mail him a two-spot or something.
(Incidentally, is that you in your icon? I've always sort of wondered that.)
Yes, that is me. Actually, it's me from at least 6 years ago, because I know it's before I started at my current job.
And yeah, maybe what Specter is doing is a minor thing, but at least he's doing something. And if it leads to Bush getting a taste of reality slapped back into him, so much the better.
Hot. You wear/wore the beard well; most people don't IMO. Still got the hair? (I sometimes feel like an alien when I venture outside metalhead subculture, you see, which makes me occasionally curious about long hair on men elsewhere. Though it wouldn't surprise me at all if you were of the Tribe as we call it here, I've also learnt not to make assumptions on that count. I once hailed-and-horned a Mormon in street clothes. The incident was hilarious, but educational.) So basically I just wanted to be sure the picture I've been associating with you actually is you, in short, not merely learn if you are in fact that aesthetic. :p
I didn't mean to say it was *minor*, exactly, just... misfocused, I suppose. We can only hope Bush is capable of perceiving objective reality... I'm not sure he can. He lives far too much in the subjective realms and never seems to venture outside for a peek, even.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
That said, Arlen Specter has always sort of confused me. He doesn't seem terribly Republican most of the time.
no subject
Bush has attached signing statements to over 130 pieces of legislation but those 130 pieces actually comprise at least 750 challenges. That (the number of challenges) is more then all of the previous presidents combined.
Also, it probably violates the concept, if not the actual seperation of powers. You see, Legislative Branch (the House and Senate) writes the laws that govern the country, the Executive Branch (the President) determines if those laws will be enacted (by passing them or vetoing them), and the Judicial Branch determines if those laws are constitutional. Okay, that's the simple version, at least.
But these signing statements... what could be so bad about them? Well, here's the deal. When a piece of legislation passes both the House and Senate and goes to the president's desk, he's only supposed to do one of three things. Sign it, veto it, or take no action. Now, it's not like he's breaking new ground by attaching signing statments. They've been used by presidents as far back as James Monroe. But they've usually been things like how the laws should be applied (i.e. how the appropriate federal agencies should apply the law and so forth).
Bush's signing statements are more of a "here's how the law should be applied, regardless of what Congress thinks, and don't worry, it's constitutional because I say so. After all, I'm the President.", thereby choosing to rewrite laws and apply their constitutionality, which is Congress's and the Supreme Court's jobs, respectively.
One of his big examples is this one, applied to the McCain Detainee Amendment (which prohibited cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody - i.e. the torture ban).Translated, this signing statement means the President is reserving the right to waive the 'torture ban' whenever he feels it is necessary.
And that shit ain't right. Not in this case. Hell, probably not in the majority of the cases where Bush has tacked on signing statements. It's pretty much a usurption of powers normally reserved for Congress and the Supreme Court. It's a power play. And that shit ain't right either.
no subject
Still sort of strikes me as biting his right ass-cheek when we shoot be aiming for his right ventricle, but, hell, for him that is pretty damned impressive. Maybe I'll mail him a two-spot or something.
(Incidentally, is that you in your icon? I've always sort of wondered that.)
no subject
And yeah, maybe what Specter is doing is a minor thing, but at least he's doing something. And if it leads to Bush getting a taste of reality slapped back into him, so much the better.
no subject
I didn't mean to say it was *minor*, exactly, just... misfocused, I suppose. We can only hope Bush is capable of perceiving objective reality... I'm not sure he can. He lives far too much in the subjective realms and never seems to venture outside for a peek, even.