From http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/35697/

The fact that Bush wants to rule as something like a dictator is nothing new. Heck, he even said it himself. But a startling new article in Sunday's Boston Globe shows just how far he's already taken his wish: Bush has reserved the right to ignore as many as 750 laws passed by Congress during his presidency.

In the piece, Charlie Savage provides a rundown of how President Bush has used signing statements in lieu of the presidential veto. In contrast to Bush The First's 232 such challenges, and Clinton's 140, George W. has challenged 750 new laws in this manner.

The effects? Jack Balkin over at Balkinization neatly sums them up for us: The signing statements enable the president to pick certain portions of legislation that he doesn't fancy, undermining the will of Congress without any public accountability or effective recourse from Congress or the courts. George W.'s allergy to vetoes smack of a specific intent to avoid public scrutiny of his interpretation of the constitution. As Balkin writes,


The Bush Administration didn't want Congress regulating how it treated prisoners, regarding any such interventions as unconstitutional; at the same time, it didn't want the courts deciding the question of constitutionality either. It simply wanted to be free of legal obligations or responsibilities in this area other than those that it choose for itself.

you are not Infoterror, please stop assuming his duties.

I read about this in the Globe, it was on the front page. I was gonna start a thread about.

He has formally declared in Signing Statements that he has the power to disobey any laws he feels like so long as he can claim they go against his interpretation of the constiution.

He also gone against more laws than ANY other president in HISTORY.

Yeti said:

Nah, if it was infoterror, it would be:

BUSH SIGNS 750 BALKINS INTO CONSTITUTION
NOW BOSTON CONTROLS THE GLOBE
THE FAULT OF DEMOCRACY
JEWS ASS SANDWICH

the_taste_of_cigarettes said:

i don't doubt that, but i don't think you could prove it. I bet over half of our presidents have broken shit loads of laws. That's what happens when you're in power, you can get away with shit.

I'm not saying i like it or agree with it. It's just a fact.

no it was proven in the Globe.

it was from yesterday.

He specifically stated in signing statements that these laws did not apply to him and then went totally against them subsequently.

eddie said:


The article above proves it.



eddie said:


The article also compares the numbers to other presidents. Bush has broken over 140 laws per year of his presidency, compared to the first Bush (58 per year) and Clinton (15 per year).

Power corrupts is a universal truth, you're absolutely right, but that doesn't mean things can't get worse. I don't want to be resigned to the fact that the next president could break 300 laws a year under the reasoning that presidents have used their power to get away with shit in the past.

Ya, she really is every bit as annoying as INFOTERROR. Hopefully, she'll begin to realize that interest in her threads is dropping faster than a hooker with a $50 in her face.

hoser said:

i don't think we know every law that presidents break, there is always shit going on that the public doesn't know about. so all that proves is he got caught for breaking 140+ laws(i'm willing to bet he broke more than that). same with the other presidents. you really don't know how many he or anyone else has broken laws. Think about how many laws you've broken, every time you speed, smoke weed , j walk blah blah blah.

I know it may sound like i'm justify what he's done, but i'm not.

i'm sorry but corruption is inevitable and universal as you said, and is why they can only get 2 4 year terms to prevent tyranny. i don't even think presidents try and justify breaking laws, they just ignore it and avoid the courts.

All true (at least in the modern era; almost two centuries following the Declaration of Independance were full of inherant antimonarchial skepticism of a strong chief executive, and the legistature consequently took full advantage of their constitutional authority).

But the point is the problems are gradually getting worse. A lot of the increases in executive power have happened over the last half a century, and with greater frequency. More power = more corruption.

And I believe it is reasonable to say the trendline of known presidential crimes doesn't differ that wildly from the trendline of unknown presidential crimes. If the former is going up, you can bet the latter is as well.