What's the worst of the more than a dozen objections? Congress established new job qualifications for FEMA director, including, nominating a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership." Bush disagreed, saying it would "rule Out' potential candidates! He is against hiring someone with experience?
Here's part of article and link to full article:
<h1>Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law</h1><h2>Signing statement is employed again</h2>WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.
To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership."
Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.
The law, Bush wrote, ``purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
The homeland-security bill contained measures covering a range of topics, including terrorism, disaster preparedness, and illegal immigration. One provision calls for authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border.
But Bush's signing statement challenged at least three-dozen laws specified in the bill. Among those he targeted is a provision that empowers the FEMA director to tell Congress about the nation's emergency management needs without White House permission. This law, Bush said, ``purports . . . to limit supervision of an executive branch official in the provision of advice to the Congress." Despite the law, he said, the FEMA director would be required to get clearance from the White House before telling lawmakers anything.
Bush said nothing of his objections when he signed the bill with a flourish in a ceremony Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz. At the time, he proclaimed that the bill was ``an important piece of legislation that will highlight our government's highest responsibility, and that's to protect the American people."
The bill, he added, ``will also help our government better respond to emergencies and natural disasters by strengthening the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Bush's remarks at the signing ceremony were quickly e-mailed to reporters, and the White House website highlighted the ceremony. By contrast, the White House minimized attention to the signing statement. When asked by the Globe on Wednesday afternoon if there would be a signing statement, the press office declined to comment, saying only that any such document, if it existed, would be issued in the ``usual way."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
One of the things that the Bush Administration hates is "experience." Colin Powell is a good example and there are many others. What they prize is unflinching loyalty, even if that means you lie, manipulate, steal, and cheat.
Oh well, that's FAMILY values for you!
Cris, can you back up any of the false allegations you just stated, or do you only know left wing talking points.
Why does he bother signing these laws that he then declares he is not going to abide by?
Jackie attempts to paint this as a simple bill designed to address only FEMA. However, that is not the case. The issue is imbedded in the homeland-security bill which contains measures covering a range of topics, including terrorism, disaster preparedness, and illegal immigration. One provision calls for authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border.
If the President were to merely veto the entire bill, all issues under that bill would then be returned to Congress for reconsideration, a process many argue that would not be terribly efficient.
The solution, stop embedding multiple issues into a single bill. Once that occurs, vetos will become effective and signing statements will most likely disappear. Additionally, if Congress would stop trying to RUN the Executive Branch and focus more on controlling the purse strings and oversight responsibilities, then we would all be better off.
Why doesn't Bush use his veto pen? Why doesn't he just come out and say, "Uh uh, guys. I don't agree with this part. Take it back and rewrite." Why praise the bill and sign it, and then just hours later say "Oh, by the way, I don't like these part." Does he not read them before he sign bills?
I wish I can sign contracts, and then hours later say, "Oh, btw, I don't like some of those items listed in the contract, so I won't be following them." I would get my butts sued and lose. Why doesn't this guy just do these things in the open?
As I said earlier, the solution is for Congress to stop embedding multiple issues into a single bill. Once that occurs, vetos will become effective and signing statements will most likely disappear. Additionally, if Congress would stop trying to RUN the Executive Branch and focus more on controlling the purse strings and oversight responsibilities, then we would all be better off.
Check your constitution. It's not the job of the president to interpret the bills he signs into law, nor does he have any constitutional authority to change the intent of the bill with his signing statements. He acts completely out of his limits when he does so, and nothing that he states in those signing statements has any legally binding authority.
Democracy isn't always easy, nor should it be.
You wrote: "Jackie attempts to paint this as a simple bill designed to address only FEMA." Please do not use your ignorant rhetoric to twist a posting. If you would read the post in it's entirety, and follow the link to the full story, you'd see Bush's signing statement challenged at least three-dozen laws specified in the bill.
That's a far cry from your ridiculous statement. And you seem to miss the point of the excerpt entirely -- the world was finally made aware of the broad scope of this administrations incompetence, dysfunction and cronyism, by the total failure of Michael Brown (FEMA poster child). Hired by the outgoing director, because they'd been college room mates. I don't need to go over the ludicrous lack of experience Mr. Brown brought to the position, who would blame him for such a plum assignment?
But, with the Bush cabal falling down in pieces around him, why on earth would Bush challenge or object to an experienced leader for one of the most important positions within Homeland Security? This would be an non-issue if he would have just abided by what Congress proposed. Instead, it's in all the papers, on the news, on the blogs on talk radio, even conservative talk radio is questioning his judgment once again. And it brings the memory of Katrina back to our minds. The agonizing days of horrific tragedy. Why on earth would he do that with all the other scandalous events crushing his party? I think he is secretly trying to sabotage the GOP.
You and some of the others are so blinded by partisanship that you cannot even recognize when a President's actions should be questioned. It is amazing to me that you are so easily misled. I commend you for sticking to the party line, the GOP anti-Americans (which are few in the party) should be very proud of you. Fortunately for the rest of us, most true conservatives and moderates have recognized the abuse of powers this administration has used, and continue to use. I'd recommend you start doing a little, even just a teensy bit of research, and enlighten yourself as to what's happening. It isn't too late, and we'd help you. But it takes critical thinking, an open mind, and a willingness to challenge abuse of powers, from anyone!
Through the years there has been value in signing statements through many administrations. And no one would object to Bush's if they weren't used as a blatant disregard for laws passed by a rubber stamp Congress.
Arlen Spector showed integrity and challenged this abuse, after the ABA published their findings. The ABA found that Bush uses signing statements as a weapon, to get his way.
I am posting another fuller reponse to your comment. You see, I use actual evidene, gleened froma variet of sources to substantiate my claims of abuse of power. I don't need talking points or partisan rhetoric, I rely on facts. There will links to numerous stories, editorial, and opinion pices, regarding the use of signing statements, history, impact, danger, etc. I'm posting small excerpts from the various stories and a link to the full story. Some are from true Conservatives, some are from Conservative media sources, some are from liberal media sources. I want to illustrate the contempt felt from across the political spectrum towards this administrations obvious abuse of power. And this is just concerning one issue! Some are easier to read than others. I hope you will read them.
The House of Representatives has three designated powers: Declaring war, conducting oversight, and the power of the purse. We've already gone a long way toward sacrificing the first two to the Executive Branch.
The Constitution's intent is clear, Congress is not to relinquish powers to the executive branch, or take a subsidiary roll to the President; they represent co-equal branches of government.
And isn't it funny, just this week the President and Tony Snow made it a point, while evading questions regarding the Foley cover-up, and Congress's role in it; to say "We can't tell Congress how to do thier jobs, and we won't try" Jeez...when it's convenient they give Congress their ball sac back...
Representatives of Congress are granted the power by the Constitution to deny Presidential overreach.
Since Bush took office, the shift of constitutional power from Congress to the Executive Branch has greatly accelerated and the obvious abuse of powers does make Bush appear to be a man determined to behave like a dictator, beholden to no one.
At least Congress finally appears to be growing uneasy about surrendering so much of its authority, they are speaking up, questioning the Presidents actions, and taking tiny steps to finding their integrity.
Bush and his minions are inventing executive authority with an imagination unrivaled since the days of the last King George.
Efficiency is not a forte of a democratic system. Just because they want to run a democratic country like a big business doesn't mean they can, or should.
When Bush signed the bill, he either didn't read the bill and changed his mind later about certain items after the signing, in which case all of his praises of this being "an important bill" was just bluffing, or he already knew he was going to issue signing statement, but he tried to see if he could sneak it pass without too many people knowing about it.
Technically, there's probably nothing illegal. But then again I ask why. Why is he always trying to sneak around like this? Why the obsession with being a dictator? Does he fancy himself to be one?
Yes. I believe he thinks that very thing. Bush is a dangerous man, it is high time a few people in this thread started noticing that.
For both Steve and Lori, why do you view the President as a dictator? Do you have any facts to support that assertion?
Jackie, you state: "Since Bush took office, the shift of constitutional power from Congress to the Executive Branch has greatly accelerated and the obvious abuse of powers …." Can you expound on any specifics to these allegations? If so, I would be willing to debate the issues since glittering generalities do little to promote debate
So, like, how much are they paying you to try to divert the issues?
Tom is a neosheep.
They do not have the power to resist the will of the shepherd.
Cheri, maybe you can help John since he apparently cannot defend his position.