Bush's latest signing statement allows government to open your mail

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 5 2007, 10:13 PM) [snapback]371672[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe so. Only a formal court filing can begin a judicial review, and even then only if the court agrees to hear the case.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 5 2007, 10:13 PM) [snapback]371672[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Congress should sue to president when he issues a signing statement essentially declaring his intention to interpret the law differently than it is worded. But when Congress is a bunch of cowards or wimps it lets the president trample on it.

I repeat that a presidential signing statement has no force of law. It is merely the current executive declaring his personal intention regarding the law. If the statement merely says that he thinks it's a good law or a bad law, that's fine: he is going on record for posterity. But if he declares that he will intentionally misinterpret the law, or will refuse to enforce it, or will read into it things that are not there, then he is basically declaring his intention to break that law.

Congress cannot make signing statements illegal. But it can declare its intention to go to court if necessary to force the executive to obey the law as written. And it can declare its intention to impeach a president who blatantly refuses to carry out his Constitutional duties, which include enforcing the law.

A president does not have the right to alter a bill as he signs it into law. If he uses a signing statement to do that, he is exceeding his Constitutional authority. And such a statement therefore is not binding on anybody. Even on himself. And certainly not on future administrations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]371425[/snapback]</div>

Wishing for the death of Americans whose only "offense" is disagreeing with you on political issues is certainly unbecoming a doctor. It is this kind of statement that made me doubt you really were a doctor. Someone told me that you are, indeed, a doctor, but I have to say, it's a pretty queer kind of doctor who wishes death upon peaceful, law-abiding people merely for diagreeing with him.

[I use the word "queer" in its original sense, before it began to be used in reference to sexual orientation. I am not calling you homosexual. All the homosexuals I know are far more sensitive than you are.]

 

I hope he pays my bills while he is reading my mail.

 

I never thought I'd do this, but I have to defend the good doctor here. He specifically said lower floors; in other words, so they could get out. ie, he hopes they got hurt, emotionally and financially, but not actually killed.

Yes, I doubt he's a doctor, too. Being a doctor requires intelligence and logic, two traits he has shown he has none of, but in this particular bit he's not being as much of a jerk as you accuse him of (although he's still being a jerk, true).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 6 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]371736[/snapback]</div>

There are doctors who are plenty stupid. One of the unfortunate things about that profession is many of the decisions are tough enough that it creates a sense of infallability, regardless of the actual capacity and ability of the physician. That's why malpractice insurance is so high.

I figured this fellow was either forced to retire or had his license revoked because his malpractice insurance became too high due to being sued. That, or he's got a year or two of medical school and/or might be something like a low-level x-ray lab-tech and calls himself 'doctor'.

Regardless of the actual situation, I know I wouldn't want him treating me or anyone I cared about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jan 5 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]371558[/snapback]</div>

No, we do have a Constitution too . . . but if you ask some on the far left fringes (daniel, MarinJohn care to chime in here?), they will tell you that our Constitution is illegal because our country is illegal because we stole it . . . [blah, blah, blah].

Our right to privacy is subject to interpretation – as are all of our laws.

I don't think the way our mail is being searched unreasonable. Heck, it even states in the Fourth Amendment : " . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .â€

So, what is YOUR interpretation? The letter which was addressed to me which was opened by the DHS [image in post #37] was something I did not consider and unreasonable search. Other people just looking at the image will get a cold chill going down their spine . . . WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE FACTS INVOLVED IN ITS OPENING. - That is unreasonable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 6 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]371736[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jan 6 2007, 08:21 AM) [snapback]371748[/snapback]</div>

Based upon the many tidbits that he posted about himself, it was easy to verify that he is licensed physician in good standing with no malpractice history.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 6 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]371761[/snapback]</div>

Ok, you've hinted at this a couple times. Curiousity is piqued. What's the story behind the letter?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 6 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]371775[/snapback]</div>

That's scary.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 5 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]371369[/snapback]</div>

You've GOT to be kidding me. This is what passes for "thinking" and "taking action" by the left-dismissers in this thread? So like listening to Rush on the radio, you just take what you hear as fact, as long as it makes your point?

I keep forgetting that the right doesn't waste time with whining - all action and "facts."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jan 6 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]371832[/snapback]</div>

Just action, no facts:

<blockquote>"The president is not a fact checker." - Senior Bush adminstration official, CNN, 12/25/03.</blockquote>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jan 6 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]371832[/snapback]</div>

This always amuses me. The right-wingers are always laughing at the leftists for being "polticially correct", but if you put six Democrats in a room and ask them a question, you'll get seven different answers. Put six Republicans in a room, ask them the same question, and they'll all answer the politically conservative way that Rush, Bill, et al have determined to be the correct answer.

Ask a Democrat what day it is. They'll say it's Saturday. Ask them again tomorrow, and they'll say it's Sunday. Ask a Republican what day it is. They'll say it's Saturday. Ask them again tomorrow, they'll say they already told you it was Saturday, and accuse the Democrat of being a "flip-flopper".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 6 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]371736[/snapback]</div>

So nobody died on the "lower floors"??? Yeah, sure. Wishing anybody to have been anywhere in those buildings on that day is SICK, SICK, SICK!

But the guy actually is a doctor. I would not trust him to work on me, but he's a doctor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 6 2007, 09:40 AM) [snapback]371779[/snapback]</div>

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.
- Just kidding. :lol:

The letter contained a package of very noisy seeds. Maybe that was enough to pique the curiosity of the DHS . . . considering the mailing of anthrax and all.

Or, maybe it was due to the fact that the sender was undergoing a background investigation and clearance prior to an overseas assignment in a communist country. [ 'nuf said on that one. ]

Either circumstance, I see the justification.

If it were due to the seeds, does that now mean the ultra-liberal wing of the American Botanical Society is going to be up in arms and claim that plant life privacy rights and civil liberties have been denied due process?
- Again, just kidding. :lol:

 

You can't say you love your country and hate your government. - Bill Clinton

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - Bill Clinton

The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem of...older men who prey on underage women...There are consequences to decisions and...one way or the other, people always wind up being held accountable. - Bill Clinton

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.

Wildkow

p.s. "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- John Kerry 12/15/03

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 5 2007, 03:04 PM) [snapback]371542[/snapback]</div>

I’d be willing to take a look at your evidence but you didn’t supply any, I can’t imagine why. Meanwhile a Google search shows 200-400 hits on these quotes. I also did a search and included the word "fake" about 10 or 12 sites came up but the word fake was never used in context with the quote. Looking at some of his other quotes concerning the same topic I'm sticking with what I posted until further evidence comes up.

"The United States can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."--President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993, during a press conference in Piscataway, NJ Boston Globe, 3/2/93, page 3, USA Today, March 11, 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can do any goddamned thing I want. I'm President of the United States. ..." -- Clinton, Oct.,1993 here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." -- Bill Clinton on MTV's "Enough is Enough" 3-22-94

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that..." -- Bill Clinton on MTV's "Enough is Enough" 3-22-94

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic spying? The Clinton administration spied domestically on the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Jerry Falwell, the NRA, Cardinal O’Connor and others, none exactly international terrorists. See this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 5 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]371545[/snapback]</div>

Debunking! Are you serious? Other than typing the word FAKE in caps what debunking are you speaking about?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 5 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]371542[/snapback]</div>

Wow "Megan" should be proud of "Scott" for being so through with his internet searches, Im guessing it saves money and educates the mind. Im really starting to think Scott should become a Private Internet DickAnd get paid for his efforts.. and be appreaciated by some and hated by the rest.. But thank you anyways I havn't ever seen those FAKE quotes out of their FAKE postings, now I have been enlightened
Thank you,
B)

 

How come whenever anyone makes a post critical of George W., it's "frothing-at-the-mouth Bush bashing" with posts like this. But when someone prints fake or out-of-context quotes with some guy who was President six years ago (or, better yet, some guy who lost the election two years ago), THAT'S relevant and topical?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 7 2007, 05:43 AM) [snapback]372005[/snapback]</div>

You can look here Wildkow, the link I provided in the original post. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ That's the evidence. And it's not a Clinton site. You can reference all the presidents there. You won't find those quotes in things Clinton said, not searching "rights of people", not searching "rein in" or "reign in", not searching "personal freedoms", not searching MTV, not reading the speeches he gave on the days those quotes are attributed to.

If you can provide a website with the phrases from quotes 3&4 in context, I'd be happy to be corrected. The 200-400 hits you get on these quotes is all blogs repeating the same misinformation.

3. The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- President Bill Clinton
Not a real quote. Attributed to Clinton on MTV in 1993 or 1994. FAKE

4. "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -- President Bill Clinton
attributed to an august 12, 1993 speech FAKE

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 5 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]371242[/snapback]</div>

This is my understanding. There is no line-item veto. Just because he writes a signing statement doesn't make it law or legal.

"2) The cowards who so easily disregard our liberties by shrugging off the president's illegal wiretapping; the cowards who shrug off the Military Commissions Act and the death of habeas corpus; and the cowards who shrug off torture with the phrases, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about," or, "You can't [blank] if you're dead," ought to shut the f*** up."

Someone needs a big cup.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 5 2007, 11:41 AM) [snapback]371268[/snapback]</div>

Just goes to show Bush has no clue what his current job entails either. The U.S. is just another company he's running into the ground.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jan 5 2007, 02:17 PM) [snapback]371382[/snapback]</div>

Thank you.

Glad to see I'm not the only one seeing this and calling it as it is.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 5 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]371368[/snapback]</div>

Try this:

Interactive sea level rise map

6 meter rise.

The only thing gone in California is the Sacramento river area where the Capitol is. I don't mind if Schwarzenneger treads water. One third of Florida is gone along with parts of coastal Texas, Louisiana and the East Coast.

I think Washington DC will be gone. You'd think they'd be paying more attention to Global Warming.