ABA to investigate Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,498
Location
the West Coast
[q]Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.

Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world's largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political parties.

They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.

Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and ``whistle-blower" protections for federal employees.

The challenges also have included safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.

Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/

[/q]



among the many catastrophies of this administration, the understanding of the Constitution as suggestion and not law has to rank towards the top. the focus will be Bush's extraordinary use of "signing statements" to retroactively invalidate parts of over 750 statutes.

Republicans and Democrats are on the panel.

can anyone else smell impeachment hearings in early 2007?
 
If the Nov elections are a blow-out,
then W's head could be on the chopping block.


The GOP will figure it is easier to abandon this Administration
than go down with the sinking ship.


I was young, but I do remember Nixon,
and how at one point even his staunchest supporters just walked away.
 
nbcrusader said:
Another meaningless political move by the ABA. I guess regulation of lawyers is outside their area of interest.

And, yet, investigating blow jobs was the utmost priority affecting America in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Melon
 
:tsk: :shame:

Perjury about a blow job.

I know I felt my country crumbling down around me over that.
 
melon said:


And, yet, investigating blow jobs was the utmost priority affecting America in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Melon

Did the ABA get involved in that one as well? I don't see the relevence of the comment.
 
I don't know about impeachment. I think Bush is going to become a lame duck president because his Administration is so damaged it can't be brought back from its present state of paralysis. I suppose impeachment is possible but if you ask me the damage has already been done.
 
i sense a lot of unpatriotic sentiment in this thread, guys. let's cool it off, or we'll start thinking some of you might even be liberals.
 
AchtungBono said:
For goodness sakes....I wish they'd leave the guy ALONE already!!

Leave him alone? Nothing like this has been done yet. If he broke the law he needs to be brought to justice, no?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Leave him alone? Nthing like this has been done yet. If he broke the law he needs to be brought to justice, no?

Hi BVS....*waves*.

Yes he does....IF he broke the law.
I hope that this will be a legitimate probe and not just another opportunity for a Bush-bash, which seems to be the world's favorite pastime these days.

Also, don't forget that the world has changed drastically from when he first came to power and certain laws had to be amended or expanded to include the threats that the United States faces now.
 
Last edited:
AchtungBono said:

Also, don't forget that the world has changed drastically from when he first came to power and certain laws had to be amended or expanded to include the threats that the United States faces now.

I don't buy this. With the exception of the Patriot Act(which doesn't cover any of issues being discussed by the ABA), has there been any legal ammending or "expanding" of the law?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I don't buy this. With the exception of the Patriot Act(which doesn't cover any of issues being discussed by the ABA), has there been any legal ammending or "expanding" of the law?

I honestly don't know about that.

However, I'm almost positive that, in a state of emergency, the congress provided the president with certain executive powers beyond the scope of his normal ones, didn't they?

I guess its like an undercover cop getting special permission to break the law in order to bring down the bad guys, otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job effectively.
 
AchtungBono said:


I honestly don't know about that.

However, I'm almost positive that, in a state of emergency, the congress provided the president with certain executive powers beyond the scope of his normal ones, didn't they?
Herein lies the problem. There is still constitutional precedent...

AchtungBono said:

I guess its like an undercover cop getting special permission to break the law in order to bring down the bad guys, otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job effectively.
Well I think you may be watching a little bit too much TV. Yes a cop may abuse their authority, but not by permission for they will have evidence thrown out if obtained illegally. There is no "otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job effectively".
 
[q]Congress and Courts Push Back Against Bush

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

(June 6) - Republican and Democratic House leaders join forces to protest the FBI search of a congressman's office. The Senate Intelligence Committee demands fuller briefings from the CIA. The Supreme Court hears a landmark case challenging presidential war powers.

After five years of a concerted White House campaign, there are tentative signs that Congress and the courts are beginning to push back against what has been the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more.

Those pushing back include some congressional Republicans and conservative jurists who have been among President Bush's chief allies. The efforts surely would intensify if Democrats won control of the House or Senate in November's elections - and with it the power to convene hearings and issue subpoenas.

"You ask, 'Is the tide shifting?' and I say, 'Maybe, maybe,' " says Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has pushed for stronger congressional oversight of intelligence operations. "If you ask me if I still feel like a lonely voice, I would say that I feel like a member of a small chorus."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060606054209990025

[/q]



activists judges, indeed.
 
Odd addition to this thread.

Bush joined Democrat and Republican leaders in protesting the search of a congressional office.

Should Rep. Jefferson's bribery case not be investigated?
 
Irvine511 said:
[q]Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges

The ABA has been talking about doing this study for a L-O-N-G time now!

I was frustrated to read one "scholar" say he was on this panel because it would be "interesting to see if the scope of authority" had been exceeded." Interesting-Yeah! It's too bad that the ABA will do their study, make their ad nauseum pronouncement, and that will be it. As impeachment proceedings have, incredulously, not begun, I don't think anything this president will/can or has done will move an inert body to hearings to impeach. It may be that many people are probably just watching the months roll by, counting the days to the next election. Just about 500 days or so now-give or take, for my math!

Meanwhile, there are all the little acts that aren't getting quite so much attention as the war or the earth shattering issue of who can marry whom, (guess I should reverse the order of those two things to accurately reflect his attentions this week) that will become more problematic for the citizens of this country as the next 5-10 years roll by. Like...the water, with now legally permitted greater contaminent content, and the asthma rates for the kids, as regulation of safety and emissions equipment in factories has been contorted and allows buy out options! Genetic modification of food has lessened the nutritional value of spinach by 88% from my childhood. The federal dredging of "just a little" sandbar/reef off of one of our beaches, so the sand can be sent to Miami. (See the tuna fleets clearing the seas out) Even Brother Jeb couldn't stop that one-not sure he even actually tried.
 
Last edited:
my god you americans :censored: your selves up the ass by electing him- like the london newspaper said "how could 180 million people be so stupid", and the worst thing about bush is instead of :censored: his own country he has to go :censored: up other countries as well, he should leave the rest of the world the hell alone
 
nbcrusader said:
Odd addition to this thread.



all falls under the "expansion of executive powers."

which is why we have Roberts, his cleaning lady, and Alito as our SCOTUS nominees.

what do they all have in common?

executive power sexually arouses them.
 
zepher25 said:
my god you americans :censored: your selves up the ass by electing him- like the london newspaper said "how could 180 million people be so stupid", and the worst thing about bush is instead of :censored: his own country he has to go :censored: up other countries as well, he should leave the rest of the world the hell alone

What you said is very HARSH.

Its the same as a shopkeeper who was robbed and then gets criticized for trying to protect his store from further robberies.
 
AchtungBono said:


Its the same as a shopkeeper who was robbed and then gets criticized for trying to protect his store from further robberies.

Um, no. A shopkeeper buys a security system and maybe a gun, he doesn't bomb the city block.
 
well actually Iraq had NO WMD, and WAS NOT involved in 11-9-01, bush had no reason to go in and screw them up, coz hes done a great job stabilising the country
 
Back
Top Bottom