Johnny Coli Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Charlie Savage from the Boston Globe had this article in Sunday's paper showing that it is Dick Cheney's legal advisor and chief of staff, David Addington, who is the "leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws." The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, you read that correctly. I'll post it again because I think it shouldn't go un-noticed. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution. See this link for Savage's previous expose on the 750 signing statements issued by Bush, and this link for our previous lackluster discussion on the GOPPP. Cheney and his team of legal flunkies have been going through legislation that's on it's way to Bush's desk for signing that they target for Dubya to issue a signing statement to when the reporters leave, and the cameras get turned off. They've managed to get Dubya to issue over 750 of these statements that allow the Executive branch to ignore the very legislation that he just signed into law. Douglas Kmiec , who as head of the Office of Legal Counsel helped develop the Reagan administration's strategy of issuing signing statements more frequently, said he disapproves of the ``provocative" and sometimes ``disingenuous" manner in which the Bush administration is using them. Kmiec said the Reagan team's goal was to leave a record of the president's understanding of new laws only in cases where an important statute was ambiguous. Kmiec rejected the idea of using signing statements to contradict the clear intent of Congress, as Bush has done. Presidents should either tolerate provisions of bills they don't like, or they should veto the bill, he said. [snip] By contrast, Bush has used the signing statements to waive his obligation to follow the new laws. In addition to the torture ban and oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, the laws Bush has claimed the authority to disobey include restrictions against US troops engaging in combat in Colombia, whistle-blower protections for government employees, and safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research. Why veto something if you can just ignore it, I guess. Do we even have a system of checks and balances anymore, or is everything just tilting towards the Emporer's Branch now, Constitution be damned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Charlie Savage from the Boston Globe had this article in Sunday's paper showing that it is Dick Cheney's legal advisor and chief of staff, David Addington, who is the "leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws."Yes, you read that correctly. I'll post it again because I think it shouldn't go un-noticed. See this link for Savage's previous expose on the 750 signing statements issued by Bush, and this link for our previous lackluster discussion on the GOPPP. Cheney and his team of legal flunkies have been going through legislation that's on it's way to Bush's desk for signing that they target for Dubya to issue a signing statement to when the reporters leave, and the cameras get turned off. They've managed to get Dubya to issue over 750 of these statements that allow the Executive branch to ignore the very legislation that he just signed into law. Why veto something if you can just ignore it, I guess. Do we even have a system of checks and balances anymore, or is everything just tilting towards the Emporer's Branch now, Constitution be damned? 700097[/snapback] Althought, actually, Bush no longer has to ignore the whistleblower laws, since they were struck down by Judge Alito and the Supremes today... BTW, how's your blood pressure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 BTW, how's your blood pressure? 700106[/snapback] There are bad days, and there are really bad days. I've got some champagne icing down for the good ones, which might not be that far off now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 There are bad days, and there are really bad days. I've got some champagne icing down for the good ones, which might not be that far off now. 700113[/snapback] Yeah...if we get a Democrat-controlled congress, he might finally use that mythical "Presidential Veto" thingy we've heard so much about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Yeah...if we get a Democrat-controlled congress, he might finally use that mythical "Presidential Veto" thingy we've heard so much about... 700117[/snapback] What's a Veto? Hasn't that gone the way of codliver oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 What does this have to do with Reid getting several thousand dollars in ring side tickets for a boxing match, all while "voting" to open up gambling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 What does this have to do with Reid getting several thousand dollars in ring side tickets for a boxing match, all while "voting" to open up gambling? 700119[/snapback] Senate ethics rules allow gifts (or in this case, ringside seat tickets) from government agencies, ie the Nevada Boxing Commision. Senate Ethics Rules (pdf) The Gifts Rule contains 23 exceptions. The following gifts are expressly excluded from theRule’s limitations: [snip] (16) anything paid for by Federal, State, or local government, or secured by the Government under a Government contract; Also, I do not yet have the link, but Reid voted against the Nevada Boxing Commission's interests, the guys that gave him the tickets. There's no scandal here, William. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Senate ethics rules allow gifts (or in this case, ringside seat tickets) from government agencies, ie the Nevada Boxing Commision. Senate Ethics Rules (pdf) Also, I do not yet have the link, but Reid voted against the Nevada Boxing Commission's interests, the guys that gave him the tickets. There's no scandal here, William. 700127[/snapback] I call bull sh--. He may have followed the letter of the law...but it still looks slimy. If the partisan tables were turned, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. I also think that anyone who claims to be surprised by corruption in boxing, of all things, should have their head examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Senate ethics rules allow gifts (or in this case, ringside seat tickets) from government agencies, ie the Nevada Boxing Commision. Senate Ethics Rules (pdf) Also, I do not yet have the link, but Reid voted against the Nevada Boxing Commission's interests, the guys that gave him the tickets. There's no scandal here, William. 700127[/snapback] Are you going to tell me those tickets were less then $50. Bullsh_it. They cost in excess of a thousand dollars and are illegal at every level. Also, why he did vote against certain aspects he certainly voted to pass legislation. In fact it was his own bill. BTW, the other two he invited where Mccain who paid for his ticket to the toon of $1400, and Ensign who recused himself from voting on the legislation. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews....htm?source=rss Again, read facts, and actually read what you sent me. Even if the tickets qualified as an exepted gift it still must fall within the onetime 99.99 limit and less then 250 total per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 I call bull sh--. He may have followed the letter of the law...but it still looks slimy. If the partisan tables were turned, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. I also think that anyone who claims to be surprised by corruption in boxing, of all things, should have their head examined. 700129[/snapback] Here's a link to the legislation Reid introduced calling for more oversight of boxing, clearly not in the interests of the Nevada Boxing Commission. I sympathize with VABills' stick-to-it-iveness in trying to hijack a thread exposing the shadiness of the Cheney I mean Bush administration, but there is no scandal there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Are you going to tell me those tickets were less then $50. Bullsh_it. They cost in excess of a thousand dollars and are illegal at every level. Also, why he did vote against certain aspects he certainly voted to pass legislation. In fact it was his own bill. BTW, the other two he invited where Mccain who paid for his ticket to the toon of $1400, and Ensign who recused himself from voting on the legislation. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews....htm?source=rss Again, read facts, and actually read what you sent me. Even if the tickets qualified as an exepted gift it still must fall within the onetime 99.99 limit and less then 250 total per year. 700132[/snapback] No, he's telling you that, since they're from a state government, they don't count under the $50 rule. Which I personally think is literally accurate...depending on how "officially government" you consider the Nevada Boxing Commission (and depending on how honest you consider the NBC - many would consider ANY gift from them an ethics violation.) Coli's "no scandal here" comment, however, is disingenious...it LOOKS shady enough, even if it isn't. And you...having just lit into someone last week for the "Bush bad? Well...Clinton worse!" idiocy, you think I'd let yours go? Way to argue about the content of Coli's post. What Ried's boxing seats have to do with the Presidential veto or signing statements is a mystery to most everyone...save you, it seems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 Are you going to tell me those tickets were less then $50. Bullsh_it. They cost in excess of a thousand dollars and are illegal at every level. Also, why he did vote against certain aspects he certainly voted to pass legislation. In fact it was his own bill. BTW, the other two he invited where Mccain who paid for his ticket to the toon of $1400, and Ensign who recused himself from voting on the legislation. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews....htm?source=rss Again, read facts, and actually read what you sent me. Even if the tickets qualified as an exepted gift it still must fall within the onetime 99.99 limit and less then 250 total per year. 700132[/snapback] Should he have paid for the tickets to avoid the appearence of impropiety, absolutely. Were the tickets illegal gifts, no. As for the monetary limit you describe, it doesn't pertain to gifts exempted from the rule described above. The figure of $50 (which is actually a dollar limit of $49.99) applies to each gift received, unless the gift falls under an exception. The figure of $100 (which is actually a dollar limit of $99.99) applies to the aggregate value of all non-exempt gifts received from a single source during a calendar year. Thus, the value of all non-exempt gifts from a single source in a calendar year must be tallied. Any gift worth less than $10 is excluded under Rule 35.1(a)(2) and does not count towards the $99.99 total. Once the tally reaches $99.99, all further non-exempt gifts from that source in that year must be declined. EDIT: Yeah, what the Crap-tossing Monkey said, only without the scandal thingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Should he have paid for the tickets to avoid the appearence of impropiety, absolutely. Were the tickets illegal gifts, no. As for the monetary limit you describe, it doesn't pertain to gifts exempted from the rule described above. EDIT: Yeah, what the Crap-tossing Monkey said, only without the scandal thingy. 700141[/snapback] It just took me thirty seconds to confirm that every other appearance of impropriety mentioned on this board has been treated as a scandal. Like it or not...it's a scandal. A bull sh-- scandal, like most of them. But a scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 It just took me thirty seconds to confirm that every other appearance of impropriety mentioned on this board has been treated as a scandal. Like it or not...it's a scandal. A bull sh-- scandal, like most of them. But a scandal. 700145[/snapback] Johnny likes to live in the land of makebelieve where the Dummycrats are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 No, he's telling you that, since they're from a state government, they don't count under the $50 rule. Which I personally think is literally accurate...depending on how "officially government" you consider the Nevada Boxing Commission (and depending on how honest you consider the NBC - many would consider ANY gift from them an ethics violation.) Coli's "no scandal here" comment, however, is disingenious...it LOOKS shady enough, even if it isn't. And you...having just lit into someone last week for the "Bush bad? Well...Clinton worse!" idiocy, you think I'd let yours go? Way to argue about the content of Coli's post. What Ried's boxing seats have to do with the Presidential veto or signing statements is a mystery to most everyone...save you, it seems... 700137[/snapback] My point is, for every story where JC can come up with a Bush Bad, Cheney bad, repub congresscritter bad, there is another where a dem story can also be found. There is a difference however between scandal/illegal and just not something someone doesn't like. I may disagree with how Bush is fighting the war, I may disagree morally with some of the things he does, however it appears for the most part to be with somewhat good intentions and little impropriety. However goes like Cunningham, Reid, Cheney, Lay, etc.... seem to use their position and power to get ahead and then vote or get legislation going the way they want. Give me the honest person who is trying to do good, even if others don't agree, or even I don't agree, over the one who seems to have his string pulled by interest groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 um -what was this thread about? oh yeah, it is the typical "my guy is not as bad your guy" argument. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 My point is, for every story where JC can come up with a Bush Bad, Cheney bad, repub congresscritter bad, there is another where a dem story can also be found. 700274[/snapback] Here you go, William. FBI accuses 2 Fumo computer experts of obstructing probe The FBI today arrested two computer experts on the staff of state Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, accusing them of trying to obstruct the federal investigation into the powerful Philadelphia Democrat. Kind of a big fish in a small pond from what I can dig up, so he's not on the same level as a Ney, Santorum, Delay or a Cunningham, but it's a potential scandal in a blue suit none-the-less. You can send me the "thanks for the heads-up, Johnny" six-pack of PBR (16 oz cans, por favor) to me at your leisure. I could reciprocate if you ever called out one of your own, and we could send each other booze for every Rep vs. Dem scandal, but I think I'd end up broke and thirsty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Here you go, William.FBI accuses 2 Fumo computer experts of obstructing probe Kind of a big fish in a small pond from what I can dig up, so he's not on the same level as a Ney, Santorum, Delay or a Cunningham, but it's a potential scandal in a blue suit none-the-less. You can send me the "thanks for the heads-up, Johnny" six-pack of PBR (16 oz cans, por favor) to me at your leisure. I could reciprocate if you ever called out one of your own, and we could send each other booze for every Rep vs. Dem scandal, but I think I'd end up broke and thirsty. 700795[/snapback] Should have let them just go on with the investigation, and let Nancy Pelosi B word about how Congress is being bullied by actually having to follow those pesky laws... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Here you go, William.FBI accuses 2 Fumo computer experts of obstructing probe Kind of a big fish in a small pond from what I can dig up, so he's not on the same level as a Ney, Santorum, Delay or a Cunningham, but it's a potential scandal in a blue suit none-the-less. You can send me the "thanks for the heads-up, Johnny" six-pack of PBR (16 oz cans, por favor) to me at your leisure. I could reciprocate if you ever called out one of your own, and we could send each other booze for every Rep vs. Dem scandal, but I think I'd end up broke and thirsty. 700795[/snapback] Oh you mean like I called out cunningham and delay above? Just checking. BTW, If I did that you would go poor as I drink the good stuff, not piss in a can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 BTW, If I did that you would go poor as I drink the good stuff, not piss in a can. 700843[/snapback] min/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts