Bush claims that the constitution gives the executive branch of government "inherent power" to do "whatever it takes" to protect the people of the United States.
Don't remember this in the Constitution, do you?
2007-07-14 05:46:16 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
More choice tidbits......
Testifying at the Judiciary Committee hearing on behalf of the Bush administration, Michelle Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, said that signing statements serve a "legitimate and important function" and are not an abuse of power.
"Congress should not fear signing statements, but welcome the openness they provide," she said. "The president must execute the law faithfully, but the constitution is the highest law of the land. If the constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose," she said.
2007-07-14 05:48:50 · update #1
Remember Roosevelt? He used that rationale to re-organize the goverment during the depression, then to fight WW2. I admit, however, that Roosevelt was trying to do the best for the country. Bush? Let's just say he's destroyed the Republican party. Anyone who truly cared aboout the country, would have finished off Al-Queda be fore invading Iraq. Thank you, Cheney, Rumsfeld, And Wolfowitz!
2007-07-14 05:55:41 · answer #1 · answered by aackpht 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, but the problem with the US Constitution is that it leaves a lot of things open to interpretation, e.g. free speech, you are NOT free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you CANNOT say certain things in a public medium, e.g. radio. But you ARE free to build a sculpture out of cow manure and call it art.
By stating that the Constitution gives you certain rights you open the doors to legal challenges which take time, so it's a very good stalling tactic which allows you to do certain things until a court decides otherwise.
2007-07-14 12:53:56 · answer #2 · answered by acydskull 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not the first president to claim such power. There is no clear constitutional authority given to the executive branch to do "Whatever it takes". This is a very broad rationale indeed.
2007-07-14 12:51:17 · answer #3 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is a long history of Presidents in the USA doing what they see fit regardless of the rule of law.
Andrew Jackson, as example, uprooted the Cherokee nation from its home and moved it to Oklahoma after the US Supreme Court ruled he couldn't do so. He did it anyway, and nothing happened to him.
2007-07-14 13:11:00 · answer #4 · answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush and the neocon thugs all believe they are above the law.
2007-07-14 12:52:51 · answer #5 · answered by R8derMike 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
its all in the wrap man...do you like the package...hip-hop-horaa
2007-07-14 12:52:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
move to canada,we will get along just fine without you...
2007-07-14 12:50:02 · answer #7 · answered by Bill L 3 · 0⤊ 6⤋