Yes, he's dictatorial. Hilter behave the same way, gained power and did not care how many people died.
2006-12-18 17:44:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I think you are referring to his "signing ceremonies" where he signs the law, but rejects with the same pen everything he just signed.
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files “signing statements” -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. . .
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
Since then, a few major news organizations have taken note of this amazing story -- then let it drop. Most haven’t covered it at all. Up until this morning, not one reporter had asked the president, the vice president, or even the press secretary a single question about Bush’s penchant for signing statements.
(According to Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press, the topic came up at this morning's White House press gaggle just before a Senate hearing on the topic was set to begin, and press secretary Tony Snow explained: "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.")
Savage has kept at the story, but this is not a job for a one-man band.
There’s so much we don’t know. Is this the Constitutional crisis the critics say it is? Or is it just a bunch of ideological bluster from overenthusiastic White House lawyers? (Or something in between?)
“I think one of the important things here is for reporters to apply their journalistic instincts to this story,” says Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University public administration professor. Cooper’s seminal scholarly article on signing statements appeared in the academic journal, Presidential Studies Quarterly, last fall.
Cooper wrote that the Bush White House “has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress.”
In fact, many of the objections the White House has raised in signing statements seem to be less about the specific legislation at issue and more about consistently resisting any limitations on executive power. For instance, any bill that requires a report to Congress sets off a signing-statement tripwire.
2006-12-18 17:45:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by dstr 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
Which planet are you from? I doubt you are from or in the US.
I cannot fathom how my fellow liberal Americans could dislike their President to the extent they will engage in conversation criticizing our President, with a foreigner.
I guess I am old school, but where I come from, we don't discuss family business with strangers.
And to answer your question AGAIN, the US is not even close to being a dictatorship. You are getting your information from disgruntled Americans who voted for the loser.
2006-12-18 17:51:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
1) Learn English.
2) IF such a thing were to happen, there are means of addressing the issue. We would not become a dictatorship.
3) This hasn't happened & I don't think it will, unless Hillary gets elected.
2006-12-18 17:47:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Well he has tried very hard over the past six years to achieve that status, however, he will fail.
2006-12-18 17:50:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
God dude! Use the spell check! I feel like I'm reading something Bush might have written. You're not him are you----sir?
2006-12-18 18:22:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kim 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
It means we have an idiot in power who has lost his mind as to what he can and cannot do. At the moment he thinks he is king but do not fear.. we will soon be rid of him.
2006-12-18 17:43:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Debra H 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Do you pay attention to the real world or just get all you news from mtv?
2006-12-18 17:45:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jon M 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I can't even began to understand this question
2006-12-18 17:45:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by mrlebowski99 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
no one can do anything without APPROVAL from Behind the scence Hands. HE is NOT ....
2006-12-18 17:45:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by saleem 4
·
0⤊
2⤋