You done now?John P. Elwood, who served in the Office of Legal Counsel in President George W. Bush’s second term, said the Bush team would probably have reached the same conclusion as the Obama officials about the United Nations statute.
Among them, Mr. Bush used signing statements to instruct the State Department to interpret identical restrictions as “advisory” rather than mandatory, and his administration sent officials to a Development Program meeting in January.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
His opinion cites many examples of previous administrations of both parties taking a similar view. Among them, Mr. Bush used signing statements to instruct the State Department to interpret identical restrictions as “advisory” rather than mandatory, and his administration sent officials to a Development Program meeting in January."
I remember folks getting up in arms about this.
Dear leader=Bush + on this issue.
This isn't just about signing statements, of course . . . it's also about the Justice Dept. crafting a memo which the President is relying on to ignore the law.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
Are you seriously denying that Bush used signing statements to nullify sections of laws he signed?No, but obviously, you are. No link, no proof, no nothing. Thanks anyway.
It has been well documented
I think that everyone should comment of this thread. This is a case where Obama and Bush have done exactly the same thing. Whether you agree with signing statements or not, you either have to support both or attack both. The poor little partisans don't know what to do.
While I criticized George Bush for many things, this wasn't one of them. Such practices are inevitable in the age of the Imperial Presidency.
Presidents have been evading the strict letter of the law for a long time, increasingly often into the 20th century. The behavior is normal, and while I'm open to the idea of correcting it, I'm more concerned about the country's material prosperity, safety, and long term economic viability.
Last edited by Morality Games; 09-17-09 at 09:54 PM.
Here ya go apdst
Source [UCSB | Statement on Signing the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004]
Now, I'd love to hear your response to NY's postSection 6 of the Act includes provisions that, if construed as mandatory, would impermissibly interfere with the President's exercise of his constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch. Section 6(a), for example, appears to require the President to implement the measures set forth in section 6(b)(2) of the earlier Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245), which purports to direct or burden the conduct of negotiations by the executive branch with foreign governments, international financial institutions, and the United Nations Security Council. When necessary to avoid such unconstitutional interference, the executive branch shall construe the provisions of section 6 as advisory.