OT: Should he (George Bush) stay or should he go? a poll.

[kieron]

I've been away on a boat for 3 months and don't know what that idiot (Bush) has been up to for a while...I'd like to know how many people on here feel he should stay and how many feel he should go?

Obviously I'm for him going instantly but i don't live in America, can't vote to impeach the idiot!

[Quinn]

I thought I had read in an article today stating that he is moving to Auckland :lol: Maybe he can show you how unecessary New Zealand's Fiscal Responsibility Act truly is. After all, who needs the inconvenience of a balanced budget or fiscal responsiblity?

My two cents: Get rid of his ass, but don't forget to hold Congress responsible with him.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

Hell...I guess I can't vote...

Because I didn't see the option for -
tar and feather shrubya... him and all his chickenhawk, neo-con, draft-dodging, war-profiteering cronies...

I also didn't see the option for a public hanging for shrubya et al...

[White_Male_Canada]

Obviously I'm for him going instantly but i don't live in America, can't vote to impeach the idiot!

ooohhh kay.

Being the only sane rational person here I propose you site which US Code was violated ?

And please non of this "it`s an illegal war" silliness. No one cares what he UN or the ICC says. The ICC is irrelevant in the US,being non-signatories.

So,be specific,cite US Code and enlighten us all.

[specialk]

kieron, thanks for the post.........always nice to break up the week with a Bush bashing post

I'm joining the other 2 insaniacs Quinn and Chef..........dump the chump, like a bad habit :lol: Impeachment won't work since he and Cheney re- wrote all the laws on the books, as well as the constitution, so let's have our own vote in this forum........voting is funnnnnn!!!!!!!!! Let's get out the vote people :peanutbutter

[kieron]

What about the Patriot Act which when in place gives him power to wiretap any american persons phone (which he's already admitted to!), therefore screwing up american peoples civil liberties. The phone companies also admitted giving info to the government (info obtained from USA Today)

[Ecstatic]

Obviously I'm for him going instantly but i don't live in America, can't vote to impeach the idiot!

ooohhh kay.

Being the only sane rational person here I propose you site which US Code was violated ?

And please non of this "it`s an illegal war" silliness. No one cares what he UN or the ICC says. The ICC is irrelevant in the US,being non-signatories.

So,be specific,cite US Code and enlighten us all.

Setting aside your rather spurious claim to "being the only sane rational person here" (which brooks no sane response), it's really a matter of interpretation. No President in the last century has come anywhere near Bush's mark of quite plainly electing to disregard any legislation passed by Congress--even if and as he signs such legislation into "law"--if he finds such legislation unconstitutional in his personal view. Whether this constitutes a violation of the extent of Executive Branch power and/or the balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches is a matter constitutional scholars are debating. While I am not impressed with Bush's intellect by any means, he has been smart enough to surround himself with very intelligent people who have helped him stay "this side" of clear violation of US Code, as you imply.

A succinct overview of Bush's posturing was given in the Boston Globe on April 30, 2006, the opening paragraphs of which I quote:



Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Is Bush justified in his position of not needing to execute a law he believes is unconstitutional? In each and every case? I doubt it, but I readily confess that I am no constitutional scholar nor close observer of each and every instance (of which there have been over 750) of his position. But in aggregate, this coupled with his illegal war (and I'm sorry, but there is no "silliness" whatsoever in the position that the Iraq War is illegal), in my mind most definitely calls for impeachment.

For the entire Globe article, go here: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=full

[White_Male_Canada]

Is Bush justified in his position of not needing to execute a law he believes is unconstitutional?

Hypocrite.

The looney-kazooney left like you maintian adamantly that the US Constitution is a "living breathing document". Meaning, it is whatever I say it is. So which is it,because now you`re arguing it means exactly what it says. :lol:

Secondly,for example, one 1978 budgetary law included an amendment that prohibited "the use of funds under this Act to carry out [President Carter's] amnesty program" for Vietnam draft resisters. When Carter signed the law, he stated that he objected to the amendment "because it interfered with his pardon power, was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and denied due process of the law." And as it turned out, "the Carter administration ignored the amendment and processed all of the [amnesty] applications." This decision was unreviewable in court, because no one had standing to complain.

Another good example is Roosevelt's statement on signing the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942:

Roosevelt objected to a section of the bill that was a 'protectionist measure for farmers' in the United States. Roosevelt stated: " . . . there is nothing contained therein which can be construed as a limitation upon the existing powers of governmental agencies . . . ." Roosevelt further demanded that the provision be removed and if the Congress did not remove it, he would treat it as a nullity. Roosevelt had solicited and received advice from the Dean of the Oregon Law School regarding what powers were afforded him during a time of war, particularly what rights did he have to ignore sections of laws he determined interfered with the war error. The Dean told him that "if you decide that a certain course of action is essential as a war measure, it supersedes congressional action."

And we won`t even get into what Clinton pulled off.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."


"...illegal war..."

Let`s refresh your sive like memory,

Approved October 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress


AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary

It`s just too easy.Next thing I know we`ll see qoutes from the Fluffington post in a desperate attempt to bolster the left wing Boston rag`s generalities.

Given the NY Times` treason and the obvious zeal that the left will stop at nothing, any misstep by POTUS would be immediatley seized upon and he would be impeached.Problem is,you got nothing buy hype,hate and hyperbole. November mid-terms are gonna bring a cold rain 8)

[trish]

I do not believe that I am the only American who thinks that invading Iraq on false pretenses and lying to the public and both houses of government about those pretenses is, at the very least, grounds for censure. I do not believe I am the only American who finds the administration’s exploitation of the tragedy of 9/11 morally reprehensible. It was used obliquely (fight them there rather than here) to support our preemptive toppling of the government of Iraq and it is used as an excuse to invoke a state of war against terror. But the war against terror is a just a war metaphor (which has been at times be downgraded to a mere“struggle against extremism”). Be assured there is no "metaphor powers act" that “justifies” unwarranted surveillance of our own citizens. As the executive branch grabs more and more power we citizens see our rights, our protections and our constitution eroding irreparably away. We see our government practicing torture and extreme renditions and i personnally am horrified. Our soldiers and Iraqis are paying daily with their lives. It's time that George Bush pays with something more than approval points. Impeach the bastard.

[chefmike]

Given the NY Times` treason and the obvious zeal that the left will stop at nothing, any misstep by POTUS would be immediatley seized upon and he would be impeached.Problem is,you got nothing buy hype,hate and hyperbole. November mid-terms are gonna bring a cold rain

:smh Who plugged in the bushbot? Because the only known snuff for neocon-chickenhawks like him is a draft-deferment notice straight through the heart... :roll:

Although little dick cheney managed to survive 6 or 7 attempts... :wink:

Funny that he should reference treason...given rove(bush's brain) and the little dick's fondness for revealing military secrets during wartime...although admittedly it is a bogus neo-con invasion masquerading as a war... 8)

[Ecstatic]

Is Bush justified in his position of not needing to execute a law he believes is unconstitutional?

Hypocrite.
Please. If you're going to argue a position, argue it, but refrain from attacks ad hominem. Nothing I said was hypocritical. In fact, I left it quite open, as a question: "Is Bush justified?" and pointed out that a great many legal minds are arguing that question. I professed my opinion that Bush has exceeded his executive powers, but I also qualified that position by clearly stating that I am not in a position to seriously argue that point at any depth. Maybe you are: I don't know your qualifications in terms of Constitutional law. But I never made any such claims.


The looney-kazooney left like you maintian adamantly that the US Constitution is a "living breathing document". Meaning, it is whatever I say it is. So which is it,because now you`re arguing it means exactly what it says. :lol:
Where did I say this? Nowhere. I said no such thing. Please, read what I wrote before you launch an attack against a position which I did not take. I did not state that the Constitution "means exactly what it says." Please do no put words in my mouth. I simply pointed out that Bush has taken far more exceptions to Congressional legislation than any President before him, and that in some eyes--including mine--that challenges the tripartite balance of Federal powers.


Secondly,for example, one 1978 budgetary law....
<snip>
Another good example is Roosevelt's statement on signing the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942....
<snip>
And we won`t even get into what Clinton pulled off.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."
I don't deny and didn't deny any of this. Of course prior Presidents have done so. My point here is that no previous President has come within shouting distance of Bush in terms of his stance regarding his interpretation of the law, even during the signing statement (which is, as Goldsmith points out, merely a "public notice" about said interpretation). Prior Presidents were extremely selective in this regard, as opposed to Bush.


Let`s refresh your sive like memory,
That's it, I have been insulted one too many times. I don't know why you are picking a fight or being deliberately demeaning, but I see no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Have a good life.

[Willie Escalade]

First post here...

Basically, kick the asshole out.

[TheMan]

impeach

[houstonshemalefan]

All I know is that there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/2001 so the guy's doing a great job at protecting Americans at home (including the arrests of 7 in Miami planning on blowing up the Sears tower in Chicago).

The economy is great, plenty of jobs, plenty of growth, no terrorist attacks. Seems like he's doing a great job for the people in the USA so I'm happy with him!

The only concern here is the rising cost of oil/gasoline. But that's up to OPEC not the US president. However, had Bill Clinton opened up ANWAR to drilling 10 years ago when he had the chance (he vetoed the bill) we would be drilling our own oil and less dependant on foreign oil.

[White_Male_Canada]

Let`s refresh your sive like memory,Approved October 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress


AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary


That's it, I have been insulted one too many times. I don't know why you are picking a fight or being deliberately demeaning, but I see no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Have a good life.

In other words, you got fuck all . Get it !? Congress GAVE POTUS authorization to conduct war on Iraq.Damn you people are thick.

Hype,hate and hyperbole are not grounds for impeachment.

[trish]

Hype,hate and hyperbole are not grounds for impeachment, just war.

[specialk]

All I know is that there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/2001 so the guy's doing a great job at protecting Americans at home (including the arrests of 7 in Miami planning on blowing up the Sears tower in Chicago).

The economy is great, plenty of jobs, plenty of growth, no terrorist attacks. Seems like he's doing a great job for the people in the USA so I'm happy with him!

The only concern here is the rising cost of oil/gasoline. But that's up to OPEC not the US president. However, had Bill Clinton opened up ANWAR to drilling 10 years ago when he had the chance (he vetoed the bill) we would be drilling our own oil and less dependant on foreign oil.


Yesssireee.........I know I'm sleeping better these days now that the Seven Stooges from Fla. are behind bars!!!!

Sadly, had you got your post in 5 mins. earlier we could have spared the Bush Regime. As it were, the Hung Angels Senate voted unamimously to impeach 21-0.............Oh well timing is everything :P

[Whitey]

Let's see... Warrantless Wiretaps, Secret Financial Monitoring Programs, Lies, More Lies, Lies to Cover up More Lies, No-bid contracts for Cheney's former company, a complete failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks despite warning, misleading a nation into war, signing statements that basically say he can avoid actually obeying any law he signs, lies about his drinking, years of cocaine use, spent his time in the Nat'l Guard as a liquor officer (i.e. in charge of refilling liquor cabinets) at his daddy's behest, failed oil companies financed by Saudi nationals (the same who financed 9/11), and a million other things.

I'd say its time for him to go.