SO? WHats your point? On Oct 1, 11:08 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/BL200606... > > 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 > increasehttp://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/ > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
