To Implement Policy, Bush to Turn to Administrative Orders

Originally posted by apc
If the previous Congress' have passed laws which you disagree with that is one thing, but all the President can do is either force the enforcement of those laws, or order action from other agencies within the confines of those laws.

It's no joke... the President can not make law. That's the Legislative's job. And besides possession of coc aine and drunk driving, I have yet to hear of Bush being convicted of anything. Oh you meant in office...

There is little separation between the legislature and executive now....

THATS the problem,get it?.

Eleven days ago. The Frontline segment entitled "Cheneys Law" talked about "Signing Statements." George W. sat beside US Senator John McCain and said nice things about the law he signed (at that time) to the effect that the US would not (if they ever had) use torture. Immediately after George W. created a "Signing Statement" to the effect. Okay, "no torture" is the law. However. George W. goes on in the "Signing Statement," "You do not have to obey this law forbidding torture." Meaning it is okay to torture suspects and the torturer can not be prosecuted for it. Also including things like delivering suspects to other countries Secret Police who will torture. Further the definition of torture said it is only torture if the interrogator thinks that permanent harm will be done to the detainee. So. "Water Boarding" is still legal by order of George W. because the detainee is not supposed to die. As would be keeping someone awake for days. Immersing them in cold water. And so on.

So YES. This "Signing Statement" about torture is a direct contradiction to the law passed by Congress.

I would also hazard the guess that George W. may have created "Signing Statements" that he would claim are part of Homeland Security and therefore are not publicized.

Executive Order and Administrative Order sounds pretty similar.

One implies a single person, another implies a whole cabal.

The Bush Administration's war crimes amount to thousands of innocent deaths, restriction of American rights, and countless others I can't even think of at the moment.

These people are the definitions of criminals of war.

The Democrats are even worse than the Republicans, its sad. They don't do anything to stop Bush's raping of our country. At least the Republicans are upfront about their pillaging #.

I'm ashamed to be an American in these times. We've lost our way as a people.

reply to post by biggie smalls
Yes, we HAVE lost our ways and i'll be darned if i can comprehend it at all. Mumbling under our breath isnt going to make this terrible situation go away.
I dont know, if the rest of the population feels like me, i feel helpless...Adolph lives again with the same strategy, the same theme, the same rhetoric and he has his followers, although a small percentage, but he does have his followers also. Everyone is waiting for him to step down, all thats going to happen is the batton will be handed to someone else, if he doesnt stay in office himself...

We need to remember how Druggie Jr and *them* exert control over us and use threats to their advantage.

"Administrative orders" are invented as they're going along should you look at that link I provided, they're A LOT different then "executive orders" which have already been written for times of emergencies.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by anhinga]

reply to post by dgtempe


I agree. It's become a waiting game on the behalf of the American people. There are a few misguided, ignorant people out there the still follow "their" President and have no concern for the rest of the world or of the rights of the public. Hey, they voted for him, how can he be wrong?

But, I think that Bush will not be allowed to stay in office. Regardless of the catastrophic event that happens. He will step down when it's time, or he will be taken down by the American people. It's not beyond me to take off work and join a mob in Washington. I almost look forward to it.

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
There is little separation between the legislature and executive now....

And...?

Nothing negates the fact that the President has no power to create law. If his cronies in Congress draft a law with him watching over their shoulders, and the law makes its way to his desk, you can't really blame him for making a bogus law.

Again, if Congress doesn't like the President's orders, it has the power to change the law and render those orders void.

It's all well and good to have legitimate things about Bush to whine and moan about, but his actions in this matter are quite legal.

Originally posted by apc

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
There is little separation between the legislature and executive now....

And...?

Nothing negates the fact that the President has no power to create law. If his cronies in Congress draft a law with him watching over their shoulders, and the law makes its way to his desk, you can't really blame him for making a bogus law.

Not true actually. Take a look at PDD-51

This is an executive order that was established under the guise of continuity of government. This order was written as vague as possible so as to not nail down what a catastrophic emergency is or even where an emergency can be declared (doesn't even have to take place in the US) for the president to declare martial law in which time he makes whichever laws he wishes and the stipulation of having to work the the other branches of government to create laws is gone. He would no longer be required to interface with any other branch of government. That is the highest self-apointed powers granted I have ever seen.

Policy != Law

But last I checked we are not currently in a state of martial law, so the President is still incapable of creating law by decree.

It is exactly that George W. is creating law and -Ignoring Congress.

from www.pbs.org...

The McCain bill drew attention to signing statements, addenda tacked onto legislation at the time the president signs it into law. To learn more about the roots and implications of these statements, start with the 2006 Boston Globe article "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws" by Charlie Savage; it triggered the Globe's subsequent Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative series into the reach and content of what has become a key tool in the administration's arsenal. Read examples of the statements here and read the American Bar Association's report (PDF) on the practice, which found signing statements to be "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers."

But Bush's signing statement -- an end run around the McCain torture legislation, didn't end the debate over the administration's interrogation policies. An Oct. 4, 2007 New York Times article revealed the existence of more secret memos written with the explicit intention of avoiding limitations imposed by Congress. These executive branch memos, uncovered by reporters Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen, argued for the continued use of harsh interrogation tactics such as "waterboarding" and reasoned that such practices did not merit classification as "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," the language Congress adopted in McCain's Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.


from www.coherentbabble.com...

5. Where is the signing statement for the McCain Anti-Torture amendment (the Detainee Treatment Act)?

If you're confused, you have good reason. Congress enacted two pieces of legislation concerning the treatment of detainees, and President Bush issued a signing statement for each.

The first Detainee Treatment Act was contained in H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." That bill was signed on December 5, 2005, and is now Public Law 109-148. Click here for the signing statement for PL 109-148.

The second Detainee Treatment Act was part of H.R. 1815, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006." That bill was signed on January 6, 2006, and is now Public Law 109-163. Click here for the signing statement for PL 109-163.

There is a CRS report that gives a good, clear overview of these two acts. CRS Report for Congress RL33655, Interrogation of Detainees: Overview of the McCain Amendment (updated September 25, 2006) (source: Federation of American Scientists).

from www.pbs.org...


........hundreds of different laws that Bush had declared himself and the executive branch free to disobey, you saw that it's not just a torture ban here or a question of surveillance there, but in hundreds of matters, now over a thousand, large and small, anywhere where the Congress had tried to say the executive branch had to do something, couldn't do something else, had to go about doing something in a certain way -- ranging from military rules and regulations, whistleblower protections, protections from political interference in federally funded research, affirmative action hiring programs, across a wide swath of what the government does -- the implication was that Congress could not regulate the government.

It was none of Congress' business what the government did, how it went about it, what the limits of its conduct were. All these matters were solely for the president to decide. So Congress could make laws for the rest of us, but not for the government. The government existed to do what the president wanted it to do at any given moment.

I'm reading signing statements and all I see is the President, Bush and most of the others of the 20th century, disapproving [of] or challenging points that conflict with the President's interpretation of the Constitution.

If those interpretations are in fact unconstitutional, I think they made courts to decide. When they are, the President bends over.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by apc]

Originally posted by Gools


It's astounding to me that this news which came out yesterday has not been picked up by the mainstream (seems to be a trend lately).

Bush is using the excuse of "not being able to get anything done" with congress because of the "democrats" blah blah blah...

The use of signing statements (used in record numbers by this administration) are bad enough, but this 'rule by decree' is a clear circumvention of the entire congressional process! This is how a dictator rules!

This is a very scary development to anybody looking in from the outside and who has been paying any kind of attention as the US slips further into fascism over these last few years. If anybody believes that you can just vote in some new administration and everything will be ok is sadly mistaken. If Bush gets away with it all future president's will use the power. That's how it works. Power gained is never given up voluntarily.

What's even more scary is the total lack of an outcry from the public, the press or anybody else about these developments.

I guess that whole separation of government, congressional oversight and due process thing means nothing to the people of the United States any more.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

All events that lead to a revolution... welcome to the club.

We've destroyed our childrens future. Who knows how caotic and currupt thats going to be.

We're in a time where heros are born, and the only time a Hero is needed is in time of battle.

Originally posted by apc
Policy != Law

But last I checked we are not currently in a state of martial law, so the President is still incapable of creating law by decree.

You missed the point. He has given himself the power to declare martial law under a very vaguely written policy under which he can decree any law he seems fit where he doesn't act in accordance with any other branch of government. So this policy will equal law if he chooses to go down that road.

In simpler terms, a policy written now that becomes de facto law later. Just connect the dots.

... but is not law now.

If you want to talk about what may or may not happen in the future, go right ahead. You're certainly not alone, but you are in the wrong thread.

I'm talking about the facts of today, and one of them is an executive order, or "administrative" order, as dramatized in the OP, can not create law. There is no interpretation or debate about it. It's fact, and the only way to change that fact is to change the Constitution.