The Office and the Man

[TheMercenary]

Redux:

George Bush abused the office. He unilaterally extended and expanded the powers of the presidency with dubious legal justifications....he authorized policies that violated basic Constitutional rights of US citizens...

Oh look! Well how about that...

August 9, 2009
Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us...gewanted=print

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Redux:

George Bush abused the office. He unilaterally extended and expanded the powers of the presidency with dubious legal justifications....he authorized policies that violated basic Constitutional rights of US citizens...

Oh look! Well how about that...

continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us...gewanted=print

Signing statements are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is how they are used and on what provisions of laws.

Signing statements have been used by many presidents in the past. But the fact remains that Bush used signing statements on specific provisions of legislation more than any president in history, in fact more than all past presidents combined.

The practice peaked under Mr. Bush, who challenged nearly 1,200 provisions of bills over eight years — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor.

And he used signing statements like a line item veto, according to some legal authorities, which the Supreme Court had ruled was unconstitutional.

I would agree with the conclusion of one authority in the NY Times article:

“He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made.” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office

He might be testing the limits....more than I might think is appropriate because of the precedent set by Bush....but by no measure, has he reached the the Bush level.....yet. Will he push the envelope as far as Bush? IMO, you're jumping the gun a bit with another "gotcha" that is far from conclusive.

But putting that aside, the unilateral expansion of power that I was referring to were actions like the interpretation that a Congressional "Authorization of Use of Military Force" (AUMF) gave the president the same extended powers in "wartime" as the Wars Powers Act, which Congress specifically did not authorize. ...

...which resulted in actions the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program that circumvented FISA requirements and violated basic Constitutional protections...and was kept secret from Congress...

...and actions like unilaterally reinterpreting US constitutional treaty obligations regarding treatment of detainees -- authorizing enhanced interrogation (torture), extended use of extraordinary rendition to countries that torture their own citizens, CIA black prisons. (all of which Obama ended with an EO).

added:
I have said on more than one occasion that in regards to national security, I dont agree with all of Obama's actions...which in some respects, are "Bush lite"...probably where most of the country is. I would always like to see more of a tilt towards preserving constitutional rights and privacy protections.

I knew going in that Obama was more centrist than leftist on national security....but IMO, there is nothing to-date to suggest a repeat of the worst of Bush's abuses I noted above.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

...which resulted in actions the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program that circumvented FISA requirements and violated basic Constitutional protections...

You mean the same one the Demoncrats repeatedly approved after years of bitching about it? Yea, they approved it on the second go round.

You can't make excuses for things that Bush2 did and were such an abonimation and now Obama gets some kind of a pass on it. The double standards abound. I am sure they will continue to mount until eventually you will see that the Demoncrats and Republickins are not much different from one another.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You mean the same one the Demoncrats repeatedly approved after years of bitching about it? Yea, they approved it on the second go round.

WTF are you talking about?

The new FISA legislation was enacted after the Terrorist Surveillance Program was exposed as being illegal for warrantless wiretaps of US citizens within the US with virtually no oversight. It included explicit checks on who (and how) warranteless wiretaps can be used as well as greater judicial review and reporting by the FISA court of warrantless wiretap requests by the WH and greater oversight by Congress so that illegal and secret actions like those taken by Bush could not be repeated.

And yes, Obama voted for it (an example of my "Bush lite" reference).

I still would have voted against it...I dont think the privacy protections go far enough and it still granted immunity to the telecomms for their past actions and allows them to continue to do so at the request of the WH based solely on the word of the DoJ that the actions would be legal.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

WTF are you talking about?

You know exactly what I am talking about. Don't act like you don't know. The Demoncratically controlled house approved the action after bitching about how bad it was for years by approving Patriot Act 2 and the FISA Bill. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture.

Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama's spokesman -- in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama's views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement -- issued this emphatic vow:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill -- the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster -- and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult to imagine.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../09/fisa_vote/

The bitch about the betrayal of the Dems and what it means to live with their vote.:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...isa/index.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You know exactly what I am talking about. Don't act like you don't know. The Demoncratically controlled house approved the action after bitching about how bad it was for years by approving Patriot Act 2 and the FISA Bill. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture.

In fact, less than half of the Democrats voted for the FISA amendments, including Obama. I would not have.

I know exactly what I am talking about....as bad as I thought the bill was, at least it included the provisions that I noted that will prevent Obama or any future president from acting unilaterally, outside of the FISA Court and Congressional oversight, on warrantless wiretaps in the manner that Bush did.

Damn...read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, less than half of the Democrats voted for the FISA amendments, including Obama. I would not have.

I know exactly what I am talking about....as bad as I thought the bill was, at least it included the provisions that I noted that will prevent Obama or any future president from acting unilaterally, outside of the FISA Court and Congressional oversight, on warrantless wiretaps in the manner that Bush did.

Damn...read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations.

I have read it. The point is that you have made sweeping generalizations about what Bush did for 8 years and in fact the Dems, including Obama, have actually continued and retained many of the same provisions of privacy invasion in their actions on the hill by re-authorizing PA2, The new FISA Bill, and now with a continuation of the abuse of presidential signing statements. You can't hide behind this duplicity. Stop making excuses for the parallels.