Bush bucks Congress on privacy reporting(signing statements)

[RedEarth]

October 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit reports by the Homeland Security Department about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watch lists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated that no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security Department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them.
"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said.

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power. The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610060165oct06,1,6668729,print.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[msongs]

1. he will do it until SOMEBODY in congress stops him - why don't dems

call him what he really is, a tyrant and dicatator trying to overthrow the constitution and be the American Saddam????

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[LynnTheDem]

2. Bush fucks Congress on privacy reporting

And of course bush fucks We the People as well as the US Constitution.

When down the road Americans aask "how did we let it happen?" I know what my reply will be.

[apnu]

3. And the GOP controlled congress says...

... "Yeehaa! Ride 'em cowboy! Daddy! Daddy, put another quarter in the machine!!! whee!"

:sarcasm:

[williesgirl]

4. King George wins again n/t

[Supersedeas]

5. "to supervise the unitary executive branch" - Corp Media? where art thou?

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. No shit.

[54anickel]

7. Tyranny, according to Madison. Then again, it's just a GD piece of paper

Separation of powers, then, is not simply a talisman: It is the foundation of our system. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 47, that:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
Another early American, George Nicholas, eloquently articulated the concept of "power divided" in one of his letters:

The most effectual guard which has yet been discovered against the abuse of power, is the division of it. It is our happiness to have a constitution which contains within it a sufficient limitation to the power granted by it, and also a proper division of that power. But no constitution affords any real security to liberty unless it is considered as sacred and preserved inviolate; because that security can only arise from an actual and not from a nominal limitation and division of power.
Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power - with real power concentrated solely in the "unitary executive" - is exactly what President Bush seeks. His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point: In Bush's view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.
The unitary executive doctrine conflicts with Paine's principle - one that is fundamental to our constitutional system. If Bush can ignore or evade laws, then the law is no longer king. Americans need to decide whether we are still a country of laws - and if we are, we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html


http://importance.corante.com/archives/The%20Constitution%20According%20to%20Bush.pdf

[Supersedeas]

8. Writing legislation as he goes--how is this different from line item veto

which is unconstitutional!!!