Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act

[Lord Undies]

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

snip http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/

Stand by for sploding heads..................

[Lord Undies]

From the end of the article:

In 2006, the American Bar Association

a decided liberal organization hellbent on backing their fellow democrats

condemned signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."

  Which is a silly position to take if you think about it.  How is it the President can be "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers", but the democrat congress is not guilty of the same when they pass legislation which tries to interfere with the powers of the executive branch? 

Liberals are always trying to forward a position starting from their vantage point in an effort to obscure the backstory and the "other side of the coin".  It usually works for them due to the average person's lack of intellectual interest in the subject at hand.   

Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not.

Well Well.  What have we here?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

From the end of the article:

In 2006, the American Bar Association

a decided liberal organization hellbent on backing their fellow democrats

condemned signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."

  Which is a silly position to take if you think about it.  How is it the President can be "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers", but the moonbat congress is not guilty of the same when they pass legislation which tries to interfere with the powers of the executive branch? 

Moonbats and libertarians--but I repeat myself--view the executive branch as little more than the errand boy of congress. They forget that he has real power.

[DixieBelle]

^except when one of thiers is in the office. Then it's justified.