These are isolated incedents. Not permanent expansion to executive power. You are comparing apples and oranges.
"Cheney's office has taken the lead in challenging many of these laws, officials said, because they run counter to an expansive view of executive power that Cheney has cultivated for the past 30 years. Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws that place restrictions or requirements on how the president runs the military and spy agencies. Nor can it pass laws giving government officials the power or responsibility to act independently of the president. "Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum reject Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority, saying the Constitution gives Congress the power to make all rules and regulations for the military and the executive branch and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld laws giving bureaucrats and certain prosecutors the power to act independently of the president." After an unprecedented number of signing statements, the White House laid low for a while. But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any longer, apparently. And here's the first Bush signing statement in three months , quietly filed away two weeks ago in response to the deeply threatening Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 . The law, sponsored by five Republicans from both houses, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice vote in the House, directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on the creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units and other protected areas under a digital mapping pilot project. But here's what Bush's signing statement says: "Section 3(c)(2) and section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of the authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL2006060600667_2.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm Congress, courts push back against Bush's assertions of presidential power etc etc And in response to your second statement, yes they have tried it before. Bush: Congress can't stop troop increase http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress cannot reverse last week's decision to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, President Bush said in an interview intended to rally popular support for his plan. "Frankly, that's not their responsibility," Bush said in an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes," which aired Sunday. "It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed," the president said. Some Democrats, including Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, have called on Congress to block Bush from committing more troops to Iraq, either by limiting the number of troops that can be committed or by cutting off funds for further deployments. (Watch congressional reaction to plan ) Asked if he believes that he, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the authority to order troops to Iraq in the face of congressional opposition, Bush said, "In this situation, I do, yeah." "I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it," he said. "But I made my decision, and we're going forward." On Oct 1, 9:51 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > >Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch did not > >increase under President Bush? > > Compared to what? Other Presidents? LBJ escalated a war that got > 60,000 of our troops killed. FDR put American citizens of Japanese > descent in internment camps (if I were a liberal I'd call them > concentration camps). JFK had people like ML King followed by the FBI. > He invaded Cuba. Reagan had a missile fired into Khadafy's house, > killing his daughter. Exactly what "powers" are so much greater than > those I mentioned? > > >and after all congress (which is also informed by certain cabinets > > >and committees) must approve these depolyments for them to >happen > > Talk about splitting hairs. The only thing congress can do to stop the > President's troop deployments is defund them. That is political poison > as it is seen as being against our own troops. The Dems wouldn't even > do that to Bush, and they fuckin hated him. They'd NEVER block Obama. > > > Based on available information and the reality of the situation I > > think it a misrepresentation to insinuate that the President is > > somehow not doing his job by not directly conversing with troop > > commanders. > > Well, you'd be wrong in that assessment. > > On Oct 1, 9:09 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zebnick, > > > My knowledge of history is actually quite extensive(although I > > wouldn't really qualify 2004 as such, perhaps "modern history"). > > > Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch did not > > increase under President Bush? (yes or no answer, not "you are stupid, > > you suck, I had sex with your mom type answers) > > > And yes the President authorizes troop deployments which must be > > approved by congress. Now you are splitting hairs. The whole premise > > of this post is that Obama makes this decisions soley so he should be > > better informed by lower ranking members "on the ground." > > > My argument is that Obama does not make these decisions arbitrarily. > > He has several steps in the CoC before Gen.McCrystal, he has councils > > of senior officials to advise on these measures, and after all congress > > (which is also informed by certain cabinets and committees) must > > approve these depolyments for them to happen. > > > Based on available information and the reality of the situation I > > think it a misrepresentation to insinuate that the President is > > somehow not doing his job by not directly conversing with troop > > commanders. > > > On Oct 1, 1:42 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >Uh yeah, congress. > > > > The only part of that comment that is accurate it the "uh." Its the > > > President's decision. > > > > >I know that Bush's massive abuse of Executive authority > > > > You are clueless and have little or no knowledge of history. > > > > >Democrats are unlikely to block an additional troop deployment if it >is > > > >authorized by the Obama > > > > "AUTHORIZED" by whom??? Your own post contradicts you. > > > > On Sep 30, 6:47 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Oh my... > > > > > Nice red herring..You take "getting out as soon as possible" and turn > > > > it into "right or wrong." I did not address the "rightness" or > > > > "wrongness" of either front. Are you suggesting Obama wants troops to > > > > remain in Afghanistan indefinately? He advocated immediate withdrawal > > > > from Iraq to send more troops to bolster the Afghan government against > > > > insurgents. You can't kill "ideals", when would you say "the war is > > > > won"? > > > > >http://hubpages.com/hub/obamaandafghanistanwithdrawal > > > > ---Obama now wants to withdraw from Afghanistan?--- > > > > > "Do you know what that means? When commanders in the war zone request > > > > more troops, guess who they request them from," > > > > > Uh yeah, congress. > > > > > I know that Bush's massive abuse of Executive authority leaves the > > > > uneducated with the notion that the President exercises supreme > > > > authority on all things military, but he doesn't. > > > > >http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/16/congress-lot-angst-over-afghanistan/ > > > > > ----The powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl > > > > Levin, surprised some of his colleagues last week with his firmness in > > > > arguing for implementing a stepped-up training program for the Afghan > > > > army before entertaining another troop increase. > > > > > Some of the pushback might be a little bit of posturing, as members > > > > and staffers concede that Democrats are unlikely to block an > > > > additional troop deployment if it is authorized by the Obama > > > > administration and military commanders on the ground.---- > > > > > "bright boy." > > > > > Zebnick, why insult me? I'm a nice guy, and I didn't insult you > > > > personally. I shall refrain from my usual behavior and turn the other > > > > cheek... > > > > > For now. > > > > > On Sep 29, 11:06 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >To refresh your memory one of the keystones of Obama's campaign >was > > > > > >getting us out of Iraq/Afghanistan as soon as possible. > > > > > > Refresh your own memory. Obama opined that Iraq was the wrong war and > > > > > that Afghanistan is the war we should be fighting. He said it many > > > > > times. I guess you missed it. > > > > > > >Obama is not a General, are you suggesting he should be telling >the > > > > > >Generals what to do? > > > > > > Obama is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Do you know what that means? When > > > > > commanders in the war zone request more troops, guess who they request > > > > > them from, bright boy. Do you even listen to the news? > > > > > > On Sep 29, 6:07 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > What exactly is "the issue" that is at hand? The fact that Obama > > > > > > doesn't talk to his Generals on the ground? To refresh your memory > > > > > > one > > > > > > of the keystones of Obama's campaign was getting us out of Iraq/ > > > > > > Afghanistan as soon as possible. He doesn't want to "win" the war, > > > > > > he > > > > > > wants the troops out. It doesn't take a daily briefing to say "don't > > > > > > get more troops killed, hunker down until we get you home." > > > > > > > What civil policies could Obama advocate that would impact the > > > > > > Generals "on the ground?" What could our President do stateside that > > > > > > would require 'detailed information" about the war? Obama is not a > > > > > > General, are you suggesting he should be telling the Generals what > > > > > > to > > > > > > do? > > > > > > > Note* This reply was not directed at you Hollywood, you just > > > > > > happened > > > > > > to be last post. > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 4:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > How long do you think you can avoid the issue at hand by > > > > > > > questioning > > > > > > > the definition of every other word? > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 4:18 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > Guess that all depends on how you might wish to define > > > > > > > > "intimately, > > > > > > > > now wouldn't it? > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 10:28 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Its probably better for the President to be intimately > > > > > > > > > involved with > > > > > > > > > the war in Afghanistan than it is for him to dally with the > > > > > > > > > Olympics > > > > > > > > > or appearances on Leno and Letterman. > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 8:02 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > Good. A President is NOT micro-managing the on-site CO and > > > > > > > > > > letting him > > > > > > > > > > do his job. This is how it should be. President Obama does > > > > > > > > > > not have a > > > > > > > > > > military background, remember? > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > in 70 days... So much for giving the commander a direct > > > > > > > > > > > uncensored > > > > > > > > > > > access to the President... Seems to me, a leader would > > > > > > > > > > > want to > > > > > > > > > > > direct communication with such a key commander in > > > > > > > > > > > Afghanistan... > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/28/us-comm... > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, > > > > > > > > > > > >>> once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley > > > > > > > > > > > >>> McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a > > > > > > > > > > > >>> television interview that aired Sunday. > > > > > > > > > > > > "You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin > > > > > > > > > > > followed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > "That is correct," the general replied.- Hide quoted text > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
