Last week, President Bush declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using taxpayer money to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq.
After signing the National Defense Authorization Act, Bush unilaterally asserted that four sections of the act infringe on his powers, and therefore he is not bound to them.
Wasting no time, and in the face of this recent law, Bush is currently negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. The agreement would commit US troops to Iraq after Bush leaves office, and would provide other economic and political guarantees. Critics say it will tie the hands of the next commander-in-chief.
While I think it is nice to focus on the fact that Bush will be gone soon, I'm curious if Bush's unprecedented attitude toward executive power will permanently change the balance of power between the US branches of government. And I'm not the only one — to check out Jon Stewart's outrage over the controversy, read more.
Is President Bush within his executive rights, or do you think he's dangerously bypassing our checks and balances?
Eric Van Peterson
Church
Nike
This is OUTRAGEOUS. You can't pick and choose which sections you're going to adhere to and throw the rest out for imaginary infringements!
I am thoroughly disgusted. 2008 can't come soon enough.
1Yea it may not be the right thing to do, but I think he's just trying to ensure that the "cut and run"ers don't get their way. Both Clinton and Obama have said in the past that they would get our troops out in 6 months when studies have shown it will take 2 years to withdraw safely. 6 months is a suicide mission and while this move may not be right, I think thats what he is trying to prevent.
2Cabaker- actually the information you have is incorrect. Obama's plan is to slowly phase out troops from Iraq over a period of 16 months, which I think is actually very reasonable.
Oh, and I'm new by the way! I've been a lurker of all the sugar sites for quite some time, and I actually broke down and registered! Let the madness begin. So, hi y'all.
3This is absurd. But then again, does anyone expect anything even remotely sane from Bush anymore?
He is completely overstepping his bounds, but then again, he always has. He needs someone to sit behind him with a stick and smack him whenever he says something stupid. He'd be in a coma within an hour. Woot.
4hey bethany! welcome! sugar is sooo addictive, i warn you!
16 months is still not 24 months though, the 24 months figure is a defense department estimate at bare minimum. So in all likelikehood, I would guess it would take longer in reality.
Like I said, this is probably not the best way of going about it, but I do think that this is what he's trying to prevent.
5I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. He just seems to be so arrogant. I honestly feel really badly for whoever is elected president, because they're going to have one heck of a mess to clean up.
6This is crazy. There has to be someone who steps in, whether it be through a lawsuit where the SC examines the constitutionality of his actions or something.
7I think that's a little scary when someone with that much power is above the laws. It sounds unconstitutional that he should have the authority to do something like that and I don't think building bases in an area like Iraq (which will cost people and money) is something a president should be able to do without the approval of congress. Isn't that what they are for? To keep maniacs in check?
8Linny, I too think it's a little scary when someone with that much power decides he's above the law and can do whatever he wants.
I swear, I am counting down the days until this man gets out of office (1/20/09...haha). He's a maniac and he's definitely by passing our system of checks and balances.
9Welcome bethany!
I think the President is dangerously toeing the line here... though I agree with cabaker that this probably is his way of being sure that we don't just up and leave from Iraq when the new administration comes in, I still think that he's overstepping his bounds.
10Well, it seems that the President has caught on to what both Congress and the Supreme Court figured out years ago: that they are above following the law.
Maybe if The Supreme Court held up the Constitution instead of re-interpreting it to fit their needs and if Congress stops passing laws that are not their to pass, maybe it would be easier to keep a President from exerting his force on the country.
11What? Someone in the Federal Government abusing power and not abiding by the Constitution or law? This is just shocking. Absolutely shocking.
I think mymellowman said it perfectly:
"Maybe if The Supreme Court held up the Constitution instead of re-interpreting it to fit their needs and if Congress stops passing laws that are not their to pass, maybe it would be easier to keep a President from exerting his force on the country."
People should be appalled by the federal government as a whole. This has been a long time in the making. It amazes me that people want to give the Federal government even more control.
"Absolute power, corrupts absolutely."
12Wow I'm just shocked when my fellow American's don't understand the horrific nature of Bush's actions - do you know what this is? A CRIME. Was Bush trained by Franco? I just don't understand why he's the president of a democracy... he's so out of place here.
13Our system only works because everyone buys into it and believes in it. There are checks and balances to supresse the amount of power that any one branch can wield. Bush scares me so much because he is blatanty doing whatever he wants to get his way. But, it scares me much more that the other two branches are doing very little, if anything, to check him. There have been several historical instances when the system could have come crumbling down. I don't think we're really in danger of that anytime soom, but it is a slippery slope.
14cine, i LOVE the barry goldwater avatar! welcome bethany!
this guy is a dud and i'm seriously over him. he needs to realize that being sure of something doesn't make it right.
15"he needs to realize that being sure of something doesn't make it right."
Our entire Federal Government needs to realize from The Supreme Court's decision in Brown vs. the Board of Ed to Congress's laws passed regarding Education and Welfare.
I said it before and I'll say it again, as The Supreme Court and Congress have both pushed the Constitution aside in "doing what is best," then it is no surprise that the President is taking this same accord.
Until all parties start taking account for their actions, it will be hard for any of the parties to tell the other they are wrong.
16Isn't Democracy cumbersome!
17IF I knew how to make :applause: then I would mymellowman. It will continue if the whole system is not put in check by the people of America. We are just as much to blame. We have allowed this slippery slope for decades upon then decades.
Thanks ovenmit! I am glad some people know who he is!
18I'm simply amazed that our country functions at all, regardless of who's in power.
19America is broken. Bush should be impeached. We impeach a man for cheating on his wife and ignore another who directly goes against our constitution. I feel sick.
He wants to make sure that the cut and runners don't get their way. That means he wants to go against what the American voters choose form themselves....
Too annoyed to continue the comment.
20It would be interesting to see the SC view on this. Thomas will say it's fine - he consistently defers to executive power. Scalia on the other hand is less fond of the unitary executive, so it's interesting to see these two bffs split when it comes to executive power.
Congress lets this happen. Congress consistently abdicates its responsibility for the Constitution. I remember when they were voting to suspend habeas, Spector thought it unconstitutional but voted for it anyway, because he figured he'd let the courts decide. This in spite of the fact that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. It's one thing to disagree on what the Constitution says. It's another to think something unconstitutional then decide to support it anyway.
Precedent is strong. The SC has said in the past that a power taken by the executive on face unconstitutional can become constitutional merely by Congress accepting it, not challenging it. Like it or not (agree with it or not), he's passing a very strong executive pen to the next president, and if that president is a member of the opposite party using the power in ways they don't agree with, he and all the members of Congress that allowed it to happen have no one to blame but themselves.
211. "Bush should be impeached." What, legally speaking, are you attempting to "impeach" him on?
(Please note I want to know specifically what law he has broken that he can and should be impeached upon.)
2. "We impeach a man for cheating on his wife" - The impeachment of President Clinton were based on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice as he lied under oath. (If you want to tell me what him Monica Lewinsky did were not a sexual affair, then that is an argument for another day.) What that all comes down to: he was not impeached for cheating on his wife, he was impeached for lying in court.
3."and ignore another who directly goes against our constitution." - Please specify
4. "I feel sick." - It's politics, get used to that feeling.
5. " That means he wants to go against what the American voters choose form themselves...." - Well, why don't we say what the American Voters say before you go jumping to conclusions.
22remedios: I think this might be the closest the two of us have ever been on an issue. Let's enjoy the moment, as I'm sure it will be short.
23We did not impeach a man for cheating on his wife, we impeached a man for perjury. And Clinton ignored the Constitution plenty in his Presidency. Read the Constitution.
24And I would like to say Remedios, we are actually on common ground. I think I am getting choked up :'(
25It takes a real idiot not to understand that a democracy implies that no one is above the law.
26Alright mymellowman, get out of my head!
27mymellowman, cine_lover - February 11, 2008 will go down in history. I may just keep quiet for a little while longer to savor the peaceful moment.
28I think that this is outrageous. Bush has already overstepped his bounds by getting rid of our civil rights to privacy, and now he's going to dictate what the next President has to do by ignoring even more laws. While I agree that we need a definitive plan to get out of Iraq, and it might take time, that doesn't give President Bush the right to ignore the Constitution and declare that he has the right and the power to use taxpayers money however he wants to. Now, saying this, I do realize that it is up to Congress and the Supreme Court to say that Bush doesn't have the power to do this...which is highly unlikely given that they haven't done anything to stop him before.
29How can we stop a man who just ignores the laws that Congress imposes. What is the point of making laws if he just decides which ones he will follow? Impeach him for treason. He is just ignoring the laws that Congress is passing re: the topic of this post.
Yes I agree, "why don't we say what the American Voters say before you go jumping to conclusions." That's what I want to say to Bush. Let's wait to see what Americans want before you go tying our hands and our troops to a prolonged and protracted conflict.
And what makes me more sick than politics is overused emoticons.
30
31"How can we stop a man who just ignores the laws that Congress imposes. What is the point of making laws if he just decides which ones he will follow? " Why are we to listen to Congress or The Supreme Court when they ignore the rules written for them (The Constitution)? Sadly, the system of checks and balances has come undone long ago.
"Impeach him for treason." - The Constitution directly defines Treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
So, you either have to Levy War Against the United States or give enemies of the United States Aid and Comfort. Neither have been done by The President.
(MSucre, this is not directed only at you) The reason I am asking specifically for a reason to impeach him is that I am tired of people wanting to impeach a President due to not liking something/some things that he has done. If people are to suggest that someone be impeached, I believe it is important to know legalistically why and how it should be done.
32Mellowman thanks for the details on treason. So if we can't consider sending Americans to war the same as waging war on Americans, what about him not allowing an oil tax. That directly gives money to our enemies the terrorists that we are trying to fight.
So, if a president oversteps his bounds and tries to impose laws that will tie the hands of those who come after him (especially in a matter that so many Americans are very serious about) WHAT CAN WE DO?
Seriously, I'm concerned because we can't unelect him, he's not running again, and he's potentially making the Democrat's platform regaring Iraq impossible to implement if elected. What do we do? Imêachment is the only thing I can think of that gives us recourse to presidential abuses of power.
33mymellowman, AMEN. I don't even need to comment.
34"what about him not allowing an oil tax. That directly gives money to our enemies the terrorists that we are trying to fight" - Please specify what oil tax he did not impose? I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about. Additionally, Congress makes laws, the President signs them into law. It sounds like you would like to hold Congress in treason too. Last, I'm not sure how the United States government has the power to tax terrorists, but if you can explain, I'm all ears.
"So, if a president oversteps his bounds and tries to impose laws that will tie the hands of those who come after him (especially in a matter that so many Americans are very serious about) WHAT CAN WE DO?" - When there is any matter that you feel your government is not handling as they should, you call those who are your representative and urge others who feel the same to do the same. You call your Congressman and your Senator. Have others call their congressman and senator. Let them know you don't agree with what is going on and that it needs to change. They are their for your representation, have them represent you.
In the case of law, it needs to be pushed through the courts. Someone has to challenge what is being done as being unconstitutional and to push it through until the courts make a decision, one way or another.
Additionally, when election time comes, you vote for people who represent your values and interest.
It's like they say, The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
35Man, if we can tax the terrorists, we should set this up ASAP. Guaranteed they won't pay their taxes and we can have the IRS on them! Given the choice between having the FBI and the IRS after me, I'd choose the FBI any day!
36Agreed, mymellowman
37Lol at mymellowman!
I just have to say that I think it's great that this has provoked such a lively debate. I feel sometimes like most of the women in my generation (I'm 25) care about little beyond their IPods and hooking up. It makes me feel better about the world now that I know I'm not the only one who cares about this stuff! I wish more people would think about the consequences of their voting decisions.
38One more thought: Do Bush's actions remind anyone, at least vaguely, of the way Ahmadinejad is behaving in Iran?
39Under these circumstances, how can anything "tie the hands" of the next president. If Bush can just pick and choose which laws pertain to him as he's signing them in, then the next President can surely pick and choose what they want to follow. At that point Bush's authority will be non-existant.
40Hear that mymellowman. Your a girl!
41Good point BRANDYNICOLE730. That's what scares me!
4243
giggle
44Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.