In <f0h5s19ihebpil14t9oefseed5i2jpjkfs@4ax.com>, erikc
<firewevr@airmail.net> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:13:46 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <Ac-dnbFLjocU1l3eRVn-sw@comcast.com>, "Larry Heath"
<lgheath@comcast.net> wrote:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9743CA3F9DE72fstone69@66.150.105.47...

"Larry Heath" <lgheath@comcast.net> wrote in
news:06ydnbeeANEdcSPenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97436AA4EA65Ffstone69@66.150.105.47...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:EP-dnTDtd7COSCDenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@megapath.net:

In <1136482463.445204.78450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:

Larry Heath wrote:

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill
outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right
to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing
statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out
his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view
the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to
protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive
the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush

_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/



I.E. Screw you congress and the people of the US, I am going to
do as I damn well please, come hell or high water. Which leads to
the question, just how many laws has King Shrub written off in
this manner?

Guess what monkeyboy, you don't get to interpret the law. That's
the Supreme Court's jo..

Crap.

Once he finishes with the Supreme Court, who's going to stop him?

I suppose the precedent of every previous president's signing
statements just won't convince you that it's no big deal... -- Fred
Stone
aa# 1369
"Point the finger and make a fuss
before someone points the finger at us."

Yes, while there have been a number of presidential signing
statements, only rarely has a president specifically used this
methodology to state his intention to specifically ignore at his whim
the main thesis of the law he is signing. By law, if the president
feels that the law in question is unconstitutional, he should return
the unsigned bill to the body of origin for further consideration, or
other alterations, before being returned to him for his signature, or
he should veto the bill outright.

That's a novel interpretation of Bush's statement that he would apply
the law *consistent* with his authority under the Constitution.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm A nice concise explanation of
the presidential signing statement and a few examples of its past
uses.

When all is said and done in this case, the simple fact of the matter
remains, and that is, Bush intends to continue to use torture when
and where he sees fit, regardless of the laws of this land or the
desires of the people of this land. In essence, he is holding himself
and his policies, above and separate from all others, in this case in
particular, and I suspect, in many others unbeknownst to the people,
legislators or jurist of the land.

I hope that you realize that the Congress cannot usurp the authority
of the President, no matter how many bills they pass and how many
signing declarations are made.

I think this whole signing statement deal is simply a way for Bush to
communicate to all the people involved in torture to continue
operations as normal, without him specifically stating so as a
written directive, under his signature. See paragraphs 3 and 4 in the
above link.

Yeah, we don't do no torture here in the good old US of A, wink,
wink, nod, nod, see here's the legislation to prove it, I even signed
it.

You'd be saying the same thing if he signed it without the disclaimer
of his constitutional authority.
Nothing he could possibly do could penetrate a moonbat's delusions.

Bush~
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot
easier." "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot
easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." 7/98

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier,
just so long as I'm the dictator."
12/18/2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question
about it."
7/20/2001

Dear old George, he does seem to go on about this dictatorship thing,
doesn't he.

Dear old moonbats, they sure do go on about Bush and his comments
about how he *isn't* a dictator.

I suppose that Georges handlers have by now managed to drill through
his thick skull and into his pea brain, that he mustn't say things
like this out in public, people might get the wrong idea you know.

Yeah, some dumbass moonbat will try to twist it into a declaration
that he wants to be a dictator instead of a jesting comment about the
fact that he *isn't* one.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Point the finger and make a fuss
before someone points the finger at us."

Yeah, yeah, Freddy everyone that disagrees with your views about Shrub
is a moonbat. What's that make it round about 60% of the adult
population?

Yeah and when it comes to the Republican controlled Congress, we're 63%
moonbat these days, almost two to one now:

http://pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

Just moonbats all *over the place these days...

Just flying around and shitting on the wingnuts. :)

Ah, this is what I was looking for:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20032

(I didn't even know Stone knew the cartoonist)

--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C

A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C

If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com