Where are the anti-checks-and-balances neocons on this issue?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

I keep hearing you guys yelling when you claim the Supreme Court is trying to legislate, or you claim that Congress is trying to manage the war... well, now the President is trying to legislate. Why aren't you yelling about this?

Double standard much?

The frst three posters make conservatives look bad; you are perpetuating the belief that conservatives think it's okay to break the rules as long as you're a Republican.

For those of you who obviously missed my point... I am not objecting to Bush's request for an update of this legislation. I'm wondering why the cons who continually whine about Congress trying to check up on the President, or the Supreme Court trying to check up on Congress, aren't similarly whining about Bush trying to check up on Congress in this case. This is no different than the USSC making a ruling calling one of Congress's laws unConstitutional, or Congress investigating the actions of the President. Yet you find those things abhorrent, and you say NOTHING about this. I question you hypocrisy, not Bush's right to make this statement.

Clear enough now?

Answer 1

My question is why didn't the White House work with Congress to achieve these goals when they had a Republican controlled Congress for 6 years?

We had nearly the same technology then as we do now....cellphones and the Internet and such!

Why now?

To make Democrats seem like they are incompetent and part of the problem by not taking the steps the White House believes are necessary to secure the country?

To believe that the government can not or could not misuse this power is, as we've already seen, naive!

So if two people are having an innocent conversation on a cell phone debating the course of the world's politics and problems and mentions 'red flag' words like Al Qaeda or terror or whatever who decides if this is threatening or not?
The government could arrest those people and ask questions later. Possibly years later!
That's my fear!

Answer 2

Why is it that on almost every question concerning the president's incompetence (and believe me...there's plenty of it) some conservative right-winger has to bring up Bill Clinton? Do you people have no other reference to the Democratic party other than Bill Clinton? It shows the lack of knowledge and inability to absorb the facts by you cons. As far as this article is concerned, those of you who don't see a problem with Bush having supreme power over the Constitution must want to live in a fascist state, because that's where we are heading with this President. He wants the power without the law. A leader who doesn't have to abide by laws set by his government, is a dictator. Don't turn it around and say that liberals want the terrorists to have easier access to this country, because that's how you cons twist the truth. Those of you who feel that this is an acceptable way of life, I'm sure there is plenty of room in Cuba and Venezuela...Plan a trip...

Answer 3

All branches overlap. Constitutionally Bush does not legislate and can only ask for legislation and has the power to veto legislation that he does not like. The checks are still there, though the balance often shifts a bit.

Answer 4

Ahhh, my first great tip of the day!

Duh... Um, the President lends his/her assistance in any way they can.

Such as:
Why aren't you b!tching about Bill Clinton funding the airline industry to get them back in the black? His legislation on that issue doesn't count with the sad dope you're trying to stuff into this pipe you're puffing out of?

Jeebers some people wear selective blinders in their sleep!

edit: Clear enough now? lol

Answer 5

Merely labeling some situation a "war" cannot call the President's rightful powers as "Commander in Chief" into operation, let alone boundlessly expand those powers. The so-called "war on terror" is not the unique example of such martial political hyperbole bombarding this country today. Simultaneously, Americans are exhorted to acquiesce in enlarged governmental powers to fight "the war on crime," "the war on drugs," "the war on poverty," and even "the war on obesity." Does anyone believe, though, that under color of (say) waging a "war on obesity" the President could declare McDonald's employees "enemy combatants" and its fatty foods "weapons of mass destruction," could deploy the Armed Forces to occupy its restaurants, or could even tap its phones without submitting to judicial review?

Answer 6

im not a neo- con I think if congress is so busy on their witch unt to pass laws that work and help defend this country. the President must act within the constitution bounds.of course I saw nothing there that says he is overstepping.

Answer 7

Some of Bush's enablers appear to be closet fascists.
If this fool appeals to them on an emotional and gut level, they are ready to abandon the Constitution entirely and proceed on to a one-man, one-rule authoritarian dicatorship.

Answer 8

"President Bush wants Congress to modernize a law"...

That mean's he's not doing it himself, therefore not legislating. Legislating means making laws, not asking others to.

Answer 9

If congress done their job properly (or at all) then Bush wouldn't have to point this out...making a statement (that is fact) is not legislating. Security issues NEED to be addressed.

Answer 10

Worst than that he think he doesn't have to answer to anyone. I cant believe people voted for this fool. America needs to stop being so afraid you can only die once.
And believe me we all will die one day.