DeFazio asks, but he's denied access

Originally posted by jsobecky
Withholding necessary information for retribution cannot be tolerated, but I don't think this is the case. I read the Freeper blog on this issue, and they didn't have very nice things to say about DeFazio (I know, I know - they're righties). They called him a terrorist sympathizer, etc.

www.freerepublic.com...

Hey remember anybody that disagree with this administration including members of its own parties and people in general are tagged by all kind of names.



And beside how can any of us know for sure what he was actually asking for, but as everything coming down the hill JS is too many warnings and red flags.

Originally posted by marg6043

And beside how can any of us know for sure what he was actually asking for, but as everything coming down the hill JS is too many warnings and red flags.

There's the issue. We don't know. If it was something out of the ordinary, he might have justifiably gotten his little face slapped. If not, he should have access.

However, next year being an election year, and everyone getting along as badly as ever, it's as likely as not to be some damned stunt like Rangel introducing draft bills.

Since some have brough up the issue of presidential signing statements in addition to executive orders I went an a information hunting expedition and found this.

The American Presidency Project

They have all the Presidential signing statements From Hoover to Bush

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Since some have brough up the issue of presidential signing statements....

From your source, DSC...

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.
source

I think the entire point of Bush making his signing statements is very well summed up in this part.

Aside from my accepting the first source come across, I still believe whole heartedly that there is something more to this story than meets the eye. And that goes beyond juvenile tactics, mere coincidences, misinformation, speculation, etc...

In our day and times, Homeland Security is spoken of as "a must". No one on this forum, nor in the article, can give any reasonable explanation as to why a member of our Congress's Homeland Security Committee was denied anything that may, or may not, pertain to "Homeland Security". Whether or not it pertains to Homeland Security should definitely be up to Homeland Security. And there is no denying that.

How many "Constitutional Showdowns" must take place before this Government returns to what it's supposed to be?... and that is a Constitutionally formed, Democratic Republic... which operates only to represent it's people... not rule it.

Again, which brought me to this post...

What does the Executive Branch (headed by Bush *of which he's made that abundantly clear time and time again*) have to hide from the American people, or the Congress that is to (as well as the other two branches) represent us? Per the Constitution, the Federal Government was formed to protect it's people, with limitation... again.... not to rule it.

[edit on 7/21/2007 by Infoholic]

I actually agree that Bush shouldnt use the signing statements he should go ahead and Veto the bill if he feels it is unconstitutional, and force Congress to overide the Veto.

further down in the source document

In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

and further


Signing Statement Report




[edit on 7/21/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I actually agree that Bush shouldnt use the signing statements he should go ahead and Veto the bill if he feels it is unconstitutional, and force Congress to overide the Veto.

Yes something most be wrong with those signing statements when he have people like Chariman Arlen Specter, R-Pa, trying to introduce a bill stop it and make it unconstitutional.

“Presidential signing statements can render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced,” Senator Specter said. “This legislation reinforces the system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution.”

specter.senate.gov...

Humm something is definitely strange with this behavior against the president in his own party. . .

Bush can look good signing bills but at the same time he can comeback and with his littler statements can interpret them anyway he seems fit.

I guess Arlen Specter most be one of those Republicans disenters that are aiding the enemy and siding with terrorist.:

Or he most be senile or have something to hide . or perhaps he just hate Bush,it seems that more and more Republicans are heading a different path than their president.

Off the topic we go....

Here's a little commentary entitled " The Legal Pervert's Parade" by Chris Floyd as posted on lewrockwell.com.

Just in case you haven't noticed before, the United States of America has become a presidential tyranny. We've been clanging this bell here (and elsewhere) since late September 2001, and have seen it confirmed over and over through the years – with torture edicts, domestic spying, rendition, secret prisons, indefinite detention of uncharged, untried captives, etc. – and most recently and most baldly with the "Military Commissions Act," which enshrined the principle of arbitrary presidential power in law and gutted the ancient privilege of habeas corpus. This was rubberstamped by the Republican-led Congress last year – and is still standing strong under the Democratic-led Congress.

But now the Bush Regime has taken an even more brazen step into the light with its frankly fascist doctrine of the "Unitary Executive." As the Washington Post reports, the Administration's legal perverts are getting ready to claim – openly, officially – that the president's arbitrary will transcends every law in the land, every section of the Constitution. All he need do is arbitrarily assert "executive privilege" over any operation of government whatsoever to remove it beyond the reach of any legal action, Congressional inquiry – or criminal investigation. As Atrios notes, Bush has already arrogated to himself the "right" to interpret the law, through the "signing statements" he attaches to the bills he signs, declaring that he will obey only those strictures of the law that he sees fit. Now, the Administration is declaring that Bush need not be bound even by those laws he does deign to acknowledge. As the Post reports:.............

Please refer the above link for the full article.


I feel this is wonderfully written as in the light that Bush is viewed today. This commentary depicts a view exactly as many others do in regards to Bush and his push to show the "inherent powers of the Executive Branch". This Constitutionally formed Government is separated into three equal parts... one to write the laws, one to enforce the laws, and one to ensure the laws are Constitutional. I don't care how wonderful Bush looks in some eyes, and how horrible he looks in others... President Bush, nor any other President in American history has any other power granted to him/her other than those entitled to him/her by the United States Constitution.

DarkStormCrow

Have you read some of the signing statements you provided in your link.

BTW thanks for the link.

Actually many of them are nothing more than giving bush the rights over congress.

Interesting even to the point of giving himself the right to hide anything he sees fit.

You should read some of them. Sounds like the works of a true autocrat to me.

I wonder who is supplying the signing statements to him because I can not believe they come from his own doing.

What it is in my opinion and (I am not a constitutional lawyer) is an attempt to have the line item veto without having to veto the bill.
Its a practice which needs to be stopped and all previous signing statements need to be tossed out from first to the last.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
What it is in my opinion and (I am not a constitutional lawyer) is an attempt to have the line item veto without having to veto the bill.

You know I never saw it that way, good point.

Its a practice which needs to be stopped and all previous signing statements need to be tossed out from first to the last.

Well Specter try to do that back in 2006 before the new congress was in, but I don't think that is going to happen this year when Bush only have less than two years in power.

Some of this is also an effort to get along with Congress (ie not use the Veto power when he should) in order to not to cause a big stink.

Personally I would rather have him be Mr Veto than to have all these White House Lawyer drafted signing statements.

Then again it makes you wonder whats in these bills that Congress passes that he objects to. I would be curious to know if Congress is actually trying to impede the Executive Branch too much. It could be that Bush is right ( it is possible it could happen) and Congress is overstepping its authority.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I would be curious to know if Congress is actually trying to impede the Executive Branch too much. It could be that Bush is right ( it is possible it could happen) and Congress is overstepping its authority.

As an example... The Vetoed Withdrawal Bill is a great bill to use. President Bush vetoed this bill, due to it's "fat".

Constitutionally speaking... Bush can go into any country he deems necessary... for limited time. In order to stay, a declaration of war is needed. An official declaration was never declared for the entry into Iraq.

Vetoed withdrawal bill search

H.R. 1591

President Bush's most frequent rebuttal to this bill was for the timetable laid upon the troop withdrawal, of which he turned to call against the excess "fat" that was put into the bill, of which is the official reasoning he gave to the public.

I've provided enough links... read the bill and you tell me what "fat" was there? The point I'm trying to make is that Bush began complaining about the troop withdrawal... then when that wouldn't be suffice, he stated there was too much funding added unnecessarily. The unnecessary "fat" he was referring to, and hiding behind, was for allocation of funds to the things he's requested for quite some time.

Congress confronted Bush about the timetable... of which was well within their Constitutional right... and he lied to the American public about such a veto.

Judging from previous methods used by the global elite in the past I wouldn't be surprised if nothing happens during Bush's final days.

The reason I say this is because it's a very slow moving process, they get bush to pass these executive orders & everybody goes nuts thinking he is away to be the next dictator.

Then when it doesn't happen everybody thinks all the conspiracy theorists were wrong again & go back to their lives & not worry about the government.

Then comes the next president....

Often I portray in my words that I feel our government as a whole is a group of thugs and idiots. While I stand by those sentiments, I would add that they are also paranoid.

Out government distrusts the American people so much that it is afraid to disclose a tenth of what it does. It is for this reason that there are late night sessions of Congress, and Presidential "vetos" by the back door method.

Our nation is out of control, and the government as a whole is trying to ride the tiger. We have no border security, we have no foreign policy, and we have no clear morals in how we act as a nation.

And this is a problem on all levels. We, as the citizens, don't trust our leaders to act with basic morality, because they have all been found to be liars and thieves too often. And our government doesn't trust the populace because they have no way of knowing what group is here to do us harm.

While I will go on fighting for change in government, for them to lead America back to being an honorable nation, I must admit that it is hard to hope. We the people are too lacking in honor, to easily swayed by money and prestige and power, so how can we have leaders, picked from among us, who are any better.

Do you park in a handicapped zone, cheat, just a little, on your taxes, lie to your boss once in a while? Well, these people lie cheat and steal the same way most people here in America do, just on a bigger scale. And just like we don't trust them, they don't trust each other. Access denied is just a symptom.

We've all become a people of excuses. We watch a movie, and then take it back saying it didn't play right to get a refund, and excuse our action because the movie disappointed us. We tell our wife we worked late when we really got in nine holes of golf, because we deserved it. We tell the insurance adjuster that the roof never leaked before the storm, because we feel we need to get something back for all those premiums, even if it's not exactly the truth.

There is no honor and truth at the top, because there is so little at the bottom. And there is so little at the bottom because we have no good role models at the top. The enemy of what we want is in the mirror every day.No one trusts Bush, and Bush trusts no one, and these are both based on the real truth that this is what we have become.

All that can save us from decay is to find those rare people that have the qualities of honesty and integrity, despite our society, and put them into positions of leadership, and hope that they will inspire better from the rest of us. We need heroes, for a people cannot become better than the worst among them unless there are heroes to show them how. We are creatures that need myth to create better realities.

If we are not going to trust the man with the almost 30% approval as Pieman pointed out, then are we to trust the...

GROUP WITH THE LESS THAN 14% APPROVAL RATING????

That is your option isn't it?

The President with a 28%

Or the Senate and Congress with 14%

There have been Presidents with ratings that low...

NEWS FLASH!!!! There has NEVER been a Congress with that low a rating..

Just going by the ratings, who is more likely hiding something?

Mathematics... What a wonderful thing...

Semper

Let's see, do the math. Hmmmm...30 plus 14 equals 44. OK then, more than half the people don't trust any of them.

I'll drink to that.

I know, it was 28%, but that was my own version of the plus or minus on a poll.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by NGC2736]

[edit on 21-7-2007 by NGC2736]

That is actually a pretty good way to look at it....

HUH...

I never did the math... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Semper

What I dont understand about Congress is why they dont just pass a law that resolves that the US will cease Offensive Combat Operations in Iraq at a certain date and will withdraw all US Forces at a certain date, and withdrawal of all US Funding at this date.

It would be a simple law but what happens is Congress with all thier nonsense will take this law attach things to the bill like IRS Legislation,
studies on the reproduction of earthworms and whatnot, when if they pass a clean and simple bill with no attachements at all would trap the President into doing what the law says.

I am not saying that Bush is absolutely right but what I am saying is why give him an out, use the KISS ( keep it simple and stupid) doctrine and push it through.

Of course the previous president gave us this gem Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

which led to this gem AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Truth is once Saddam was captured and turned over the withdrawal should have begun there was no reason to stay there after his capture.
The Iraqis might have had a bloody civil war yes, but we could have saved the lives of about 3000 Americans, and most likely things would have settled down and we could have been sending humanitarian aid for the most part.

Bush is like every other President in my lifetime they have all expanded the powers of the Presidency in some shape or form. Some may argue that he has become too powerful they may be right or it may just be alot of partisan bickering I can remember when Clinton was President the Republicans were complaining that he was issuing too many Executive Orders, and I am sure whoever is elected President next will face the same criticisms also, because once power is obtained those who have it are loath to let it go. I dont expect the next President to undo anything the present President has done.

For all the hatred of Bush there is and some I understand I have disagreed with him on many things, (If you dont subscribe to the 9/11 was an inside job theory) 9/11 is a s*** sandwich I wouldnt want to happen to any President but it happened on Bushes watch and you have to deal with the situation at hand, and yes I know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which is why I was against going in there in the first place we could have put 50000 troops into Afganistan with rebuilding money that could have come from the 600 billion we spent in Iraq and I would bet that Afganistan would be looking pretty stable right now and we could be withdrawing. We would also be held in much higher esteem in the world in my humble opinion if that would have been the course we has taken.

Originally posted by marg6043
I guess Arlen Specter most be one of those Republicans disenters that are aiding the enemy and siding with terrorist.:

Or he most be senile or have something to hide . or perhaps he just hate Bush,it seems that more and more Republicans are heading a different path than their president.

Arlen Specter is a RINO, marg. That means, Republican In Name Only.

This situation is almost identical to the one that William Shatner faced playing Captain Kirk confronting a Klingon who was holding Kirks son with a knife at his back.
Let go of my son! demands Kirk
This is just between you and I!
.No! says the klingon
But Why? asks Kirk
Because you want me to! responds the Klingon
the son is then shanked and dies.
Its amazing how our personal freedoms can be affected when two leaders have badblood between them

SyS