Read about it on today's Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy
Here's an excerpt:
Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."
His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
2006-10-05 11:54:27 · 8 answers · asked by Snance 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It also says this:
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.
2006-10-05 15:57:21 · update #1
well if bush thinks he does, then we are one step away from him editing the constitution, the bill of rights, then finally the rebellion will begin to bring down the evil emperor
2006-10-05 11:56:25 · answer #1 · answered by NNY 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
the President has certain veto powers but I don't think that this is one of them. If being qualified for such a job isn't a prime prerequisite then what is? I think he may just want to reward someone by giving them this post but if they are not qualified then how can they be appointed by him? Evidently Mr. Bush wants someone in the job who does as he wishes, a qualified person would do what is necessary and this would not be to his liking as it would cost the Republicans more and more debt making them the highest ever debt heavy administration in US history, amazing when you consider the Democrats left the Republicans a surplus of Billions!
2006-10-05 19:07:52 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. PDQ 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a Bush fan but I don't think half the stuff he's blamed for had anything to do with him. He has crappy advisors and no real power. Sometimes it seems that the President is just a guy sitting a chair that everyone can pin crap on.
2006-10-05 18:56:02 · answer #3 · answered by The Steele's 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think he should have that much power, when the person in charge can do such things, I believe it's called a dictatorship, or perhaps communism. Disregarding rules and removing checks and balances is a very dangerous situation.
2006-10-05 18:57:17 · answer #4 · answered by Jen26 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I like the answer that said that Bush seems to be blamed for everything, it's true, everyone seems to be blaming him for everything, whether it is him or not.
And we can't really say that someone isn't qualified just because they didn't put in 5 years time. I think that it should be looked at just like any other job out in the field, someone should be hired for it because they are the best person for the job, not because they are next in line, or simply because they put in their time. He may have someone in mind, I don't know, and for that matter I don't think you do either.
2006-10-05 19:04:43 · answer #5 · answered by bipolargandolf 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a self absorbed Dictator without a clue
2006-10-05 18:58:03 · answer #6 · answered by lifetimefamily 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush can and will do any and everything he damn well wants to. He wants to be the great power of all time. SOB
2006-10-05 18:56:10 · answer #7 · answered by followthevulcanhome 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
my god, did he really say that? He's a bigger turd than I thought he was.
No the president shouldn't have that power, ESPECIALLY this president
2006-10-05 18:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by Choad McChump 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋