Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

  1. #21
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,513

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So tell me:
    Where is the "change"?
    You haven't noticed the socialist changes taking place in our country?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #22
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,513

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Bush and Obama acted in an essentially identical fashion as relates to the topic of this thread.
    I have a better idea. How 'bout you post a link where Bush did this exact same thing. Thanks in advance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #23
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I have a better idea. How 'bout you post a link where Bush did this exact same thing. Thanks in advance.
    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.
    You done now?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #24
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,474

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I have a better idea. How 'bout you post a link where Bush did this exact same thing. Thanks in advance.
    I"n the new opinion, David Barron, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the statute — a restriction Congress imposed in the State Department’s annual budget bill — “unconstitutionally infringes on the president’s authority to conduct the nation’s diplomacy, and the State Department may disregard it.”

    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.
    Thank you

  5. #25
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    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.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #26
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,513

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    You done now?
    No, but obviously, you are. No link, no proof, no nothing. Thanks anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #27
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    No, but obviously, you are. No link, no proof, no nothing. Thanks anyway.
    Are you seriously denying that Bush used signing statements to nullify sections of laws he signed?

    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.

  8. #28
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    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 11:54 PM.

  9. #29
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Here ya go apdst

    Source [UCSB | Statement on Signing the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004]

    Section 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.
    Now, I'd love to hear your response to NY's post

  10. #30
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No, but obviously, you are. No link, no proof, no nothing. Thanks anyway.
    It's from the link in the OP, had you bothered to read it.

    I thought that was self-evident. I guess not.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •