In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress

Politics > Politics-USA > In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Post reply

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"explorerthedog"
Date:	31 Dec 2005 05:54:12 PM
Object:	In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress
I didn't believe this press release when I first read it, but it's
true, according to a Presidential statement released yesterday, just
before the New Year's holiday.
Here is the statement, with my comments inserted.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
(Public Domain)
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 30, 2005
Statement by the President
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides
resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf
States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from
a potential influenza pandemic.
Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to
initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a
new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive
advance notice.
*** COMMENT: Here comes the power grab. He falsely claims
Constitutional authority he simply does not have. When he says "a
matter of comity," this means that he will do it only if he feels like
it, not because he has to do it. True, he doesn't need a "legislative
grant of authority," because he is able to act promptly on his own
authority to respond to emergencies, as long as Congress has not
specifically passed a law restricting his authority, as it did in this
case. But if Congress does enact a restriction on his authority, that
restriction must be followed, or else he can be impeached and removed
from office for failing to follow such law.
*** COMMENT, CONTINUED ***
Here are the exact words of the Constitution on these matters:
Congress Makes The Laws: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives." (See Article I, Section 1.) Yes,
the President can veto any law he does not accept, but Congress can
over-ride a veto with a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress.
Thus Congress can enact laws against the will of the President.
The President Administers The Laws That Congress Makes: "The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
(See Article II, Section 1.) And the President is required to execute
the laws faithfully, whether he agrees with them or not. Article II,
Section 3 says, " . . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed . . ." So the President does not get to pick and choose which
laws he will administer and which ones he will not administer. He is
required by the Constitution to administer faithfully each and every
law enacted by Congress.
If he fails in this obligation, Congress can remove him from office.
Article II, Section 4 says, "The President, Vice President and all
civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Failure to execute the laws would be a high
misdemeanor.) The House Of Representatives has the sole power of
impeachment: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." (See
Article I, Section 2.) And the Senate has the sole power to try these
Impeachments. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. (See Article I. Section 3.)
Furthermore, there is no limit on the degree to which Congress can
micro-manage the President, if it chooses to do so. Yes, the President
does have some implied powers, necessary to do his job, but these are
immediately over-ridden if Congress exercises its authority to enact a
law on the subject.
As Commander In Chief, the President is responsible for the day-to-day
administration of the military, including the responsibility for taking
quick action in the event of time-sensitive emergencies. Article II,
Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" But
quick action for emergencies is quite different from setting long-term
military policies.
Some people believe that the President magically acquires new
policy-making powers in his role as Commander In Chief. There is no
Constitutional basis for this belief. In fact, the Constitution
specifically says that Congress, not the President, has the authority
to establish all the rules for the "government and regulation" of the
military. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the
Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (See Article
I, Section 8.) This affirms that Congress can exert detailed control
over all aspects of the military, to whatever degree Congress chooses
to exert it. The President's authority as Commander In Chief is only as
great as Congress is willing to delegate to him. At any time, Congress
could pass a law stripping the President of whatever authority he
thinks he has over the military. The Constitution certainly does not
provide the President with some kind of Personal Military, to control
as he wishes. No. As in all other cases, the President acts as the
agent and instrument of Congress, faithfully executing the laws enacted
by Congress, and subject to removal if he fails to perform this job.
*** END OF COMMENT ****
(Now the President continues . . . )
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's
authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the
national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon
a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice
contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most
situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in
wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his
constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily
sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall
construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President.
*** COMMENT: The power grab continues ***
Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services,
other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international
organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or
humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive
branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer.
To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for
international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian
assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section
8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall
construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
*** COMMENT: The President's Constitutional requirement is to
faithfully execute whatever laws Congress may enact. ***
A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of
certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections
8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of
portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive
branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making
of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of
departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to
recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the
President shall judge necessary and expedient.
*** COMMENT: The power grab continues ***
Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional
committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling
solely for notification, as any other construction would be
inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.
The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to
integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent
with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief,
including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise
the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe
sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the
President from altering command and control relationships within the
Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be
inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the
authority of Commander in Chief.
The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to
race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014,
8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford
equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act,
relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch
and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional
limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the
shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title
X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of
the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the
text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action
to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to
create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the
Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the
amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall
apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for
writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that
section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien
detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall
construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising
subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action,
including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section
1005.
Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to
require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior
to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law.
Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the
unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully
executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with
congressional committees or to involve them in executive
decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to
require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General
shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative
branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this
matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.
Certain provisions in the Act purport to allocate funds for specified
purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers
that accompanied the Act or other Acts; to make changes in statements
of managers that accompanied various appropriations bills reported from
conferences in the past; or to direct compliance with a committee
report. Such provisions include section 8044 in Division A, and
sections 5022, 5023, and 5024 and language under the heading "Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations" in Division B,
of the Act. Other provisions of the Act, such as sections 8073 and 8082
in Division A, purport to give binding effect to legislative documents
not presented to the President. The executive branch shall construe all
these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and
presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.
***COMMENT: Bush has basically told Congress and the American People to
go away and stop bothering him about anything to do with National
Defense. If this isn't grounds for impeachement and removal from
office, I can't imagine what would be.***
Blessings to you. God help us all.
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director, LoveAllPeople.org
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 30, 2005.
.

User: "Joe S."
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	31 Dec 2005 08:06:25 PM

"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136073252.585445.183210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

I didn't believe this press release when I first read it, but it's
true, according to a Presidential statement released yesterday, just
before the New Year's holiday.

Here is the statement, with my comments inserted.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
(Public Domain)

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 30, 2005

Statement by the President

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides
resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf
States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from
a potential influenza pandemic.

Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to
initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a
new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive
advance notice.

*** COMMENT: Here comes the power grab. He falsely claims
Constitutional authority he simply does not have. When he says "a
matter of comity," this means that he will do it only if he feels like
it, not because he has to do it. True, he doesn't need a "legislative
grant of authority," because he is able to act promptly on his own
authority to respond to emergencies, as long as Congress has not
specifically passed a law restricting his authority, as it did in this
case. But if Congress does enact a restriction on his authority, that
restriction must be followed, or else he can be impeached and removed
from office for failing to follow such law.

*** COMMENT, CONTINUED ***

Here are the exact words of the Constitution on these matters:

Congress Makes The Laws: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives." (See Article I, Section 1.) Yes,
the President can veto any law he does not accept, but Congress can
over-ride a veto with a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress.
Thus Congress can enact laws against the will of the President.

The President Administers The Laws That Congress Makes: "The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
(See Article II, Section 1.) And the President is required to execute
the laws faithfully, whether he agrees with them or not. Article II,
Section 3 says, " . . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed . . ." So the President does not get to pick and choose which
laws he will administer and which ones he will not administer. He is
required by the Constitution to administer faithfully each and every
law enacted by Congress.

If he fails in this obligation, Congress can remove him from office.
Article II, Section 4 says, "The President, Vice President and all
civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Failure to execute the laws would be a high
misdemeanor.) The House Of Representatives has the sole power of
impeachment: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." (See
Article I, Section 2.) And the Senate has the sole power to try these
Impeachments. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. (See Article I. Section 3.)

Furthermore, there is no limit on the degree to which Congress can
micro-manage the President, if it chooses to do so. Yes, the President
does have some implied powers, necessary to do his job, but these are
immediately over-ridden if Congress exercises its authority to enact a
law on the subject.

As Commander In Chief, the President is responsible for the day-to-day
administration of the military, including the responsibility for taking
quick action in the event of time-sensitive emergencies. Article II,
Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" But
quick action for emergencies is quite different from setting long-term
military policies.

Some people believe that the President magically acquires new
policy-making powers in his role as Commander In Chief. There is no
Constitutional basis for this belief. In fact, the Constitution
specifically says that Congress, not the President, has the authority
to establish all the rules for the "government and regulation" of the
military. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the
Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (See Article
I, Section 8.) This affirms that Congress can exert detailed control
over all aspects of the military, to whatever degree Congress chooses
to exert it. The President's authority as Commander In Chief is only as
great as Congress is willing to delegate to him. At any time, Congress
could pass a law stripping the President of whatever authority he
thinks he has over the military. The Constitution certainly does not
provide the President with some kind of Personal Military, to control
as he wishes. No. As in all other cases, the President acts as the
agent and instrument of Congress, faithfully executing the laws enacted
by Congress, and subject to removal if he fails to perform this job.

*** END OF COMMENT ****

(Now the President continues . . . )

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's
authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the
national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon
a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice
contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most
situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in
wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his
constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily
sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall
construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President.

*** COMMENT: The power grab continues ***

Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services,
other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international
organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or
humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive
branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer.
To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for
international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian
assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section
8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall
construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

*** COMMENT: The President's Constitutional requirement is to
faithfully execute whatever laws Congress may enact. ***

A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of
certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections
8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of
portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive
branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making
of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of
departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to
recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the
President shall judge necessary and expedient.

*** COMMENT: The power grab continues ***

Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional
committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling
solely for notification, as any other construction would be
inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to
integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent
with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief,
including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise
the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe
sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the
President from altering command and control relationships within the
Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be
inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the
authority of Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to
race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014,
8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford
equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act,
relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch
and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional
limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the
shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title
X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of
the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the
text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action
to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to
create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the
Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the
amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall
apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for
writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that
section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien
detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall
construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising
subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action,
including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section
1005.

Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to
require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior
to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law.
Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the
unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully
executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with
congressional committees or to involve them in executive
decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to
require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General
shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative
branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this
matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

Certain provisions in the Act purport to allocate funds for specified
purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers
that accompanied the Act or other Acts; to make changes in statements
of managers that accompanied various appropriations bills reported from
conferences in the past; or to direct compliance with a committee
report. Such provisions include section 8044 in Division A, and
sections 5022, 5023, and 5024 and language under the heading "Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations" in Division B,
of the Act. Other provisions of the Act, such as sections 8073 and 8082
in Division A, purport to give binding effect to legislative documents
not presented to the President. The executive branch shall construe all
these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and
presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.

***COMMENT: Bush has basically told Congress and the American People to
go away and stop bothering him about anything to do with National
Defense. If this isn't grounds for impeachement and removal from
office, I can't imagine what would be.***

Blessings to you. God help us all.
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director, LoveAllPeople.org

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 30, 2005.

Holy *****. There goes the nation I served for 28 years. As I have said
before, I am glad I have no grandchildren -- I would not want them to live
under what is coming. Maybe the Democrats, or even a normal Republican, can
reverse things -- but GWBush still has three years.
.

User: "Nuki Mouse"
Title: Re: In Blatant display of stupidity, initial poster proves he known nothing.	01 Jan 2006 02:09:51 AM

"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136073252.585445.183210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Pure BS made up by poster too stupid to actual understand the press release
in question.

I didn't believe this press release when I first read it, but it's
true, according to a Presidential statement released yesterday, just
before the New Year's holiday.

I can understand that, with you lack of comprehension and apparent ignorance
of what a H.R. is.

Here is the statement, with my comments inserted.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
(Public Domain)

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 30, 2005

Statement by the President

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides
resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf
States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from
a potential influenza pandemic.

Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to
initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a
new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive
advance notice.

*** COMMENT: Here comes the power grab.

Here comes the idiot opening his mouth and proves he is a stupid fool.
H.R. 2863 is a HOUSE RESOLUTION, the 2863 of Congress. It means that this
Bill was first proposed in the House, then sent to the Senate. It was
PASSED by the House 308 for it, 106 against (20 absent or not voting.) Then
it went on to the Senate were it passed 93 for, 0 against (7 not voting).
NOTE: that by thoses numbers, many Democrats besides Republicans must have
voted for it.
Is that a power grab? When congress proposes a Bill, debates it, and it is
passed with overwhelming numbers by both House and Senate, especially when
the constitution says the President is now REQUIRED to enact it.
[Snipped some BS about "legislative grant of authority" and Congress voting
to restrict powers that just shows this person is too dumb to realize that
H.R. 2863 IS A LAW PASSED by Congress, and (again) the President is REQUIRED
by the constitution to enact it.

*** COMMENT, CONTINUED ***

Here are the exact words of the Constitution on these matters:

Congress Makes The Laws: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives." (See Article I, Section 1.)

Very Good! You actually figured that out on your own!
Congress DOES make the laws, like H.R. 2863, passed by both House and
Senate.

Yes,
the President can veto any law he does not accept, but Congress can
over-ride a veto with a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress.
Thus Congress can enact laws against the will of the President.

Too stupid to realize President Bush SIGNED this law? He never veto'd it.

The President Administers The Laws That Congress Makes: "The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
(See Article II, Section 1.) And the President is required to execute
the laws faithfully, whether he agrees with them or not.

Like with H.R. 2863, which he is now REQUIRED by the Constitution and Act of
Congress to enact it.

Article II,
Section 3 says, " . . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed . . ." So the President does not get to pick and choose which
laws he will administer and which ones he will not administer. He is
required by the Constitution to administer faithfully each and every
law enacted by Congress.

Like with this new law, H.R. 2863, which he is now REQUIRED by the
Constitution and Act of Congress to enact it

If he fails in this obligation, Congress can remove him from office.
Article II, Section 4 says, "The President, Vice President and all
civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Failure to execute the laws would be a high
misdemeanor.) The House Of Representatives has the sole power of
impeachment: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." (See
Article I, Section 2.) And the Senate has the sole power to try these
Impeachments. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. (See Article I. Section 3.)

But since President Bush SIGN House Resolution #2863, and seems perfectly
willing to enact it, what is your point?
[Snipped some more BS about micro management, The President only seeming to
be Commander in Chief during emergencies only, and that he (the poster) has
no idea what the "War Powers Resolution" says, if he ever even heard of it.]

Some people believe that the President magically acquires new
policy-making powers in his role as Commander In Chief. There is no
Constitutional basis for this belief.

Except that Congress has passed many resolutions, H. R. 2863 being the most
recent, granting the Office of the President those powers. And that the
Supreme court has already stated that these powers did not violate the
Constitution, citing several earlier court decisions that uphold them.

In fact, the Constitution
specifically says that Congress, not the President, has the authority
to establish all the rules for the "government and regulation" of the
military. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the
Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (See Article
I, Section 8.) This affirms that Congress can exert detailed control
over all aspects of the military, to whatever degree Congress chooses
to exert it.

No it means JUST what its says "The Congress shall have Power . . . To MAKE
RULES for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." That
means they must pass the Bills funding, and authorizing the Military, and
the basic rules under which they operate like the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. It does not give them COMMAND of the Military, that is still the
sole power of the Executive Branch, although can pass a resolution ordering
the President to take military action or stop military action.

The President's authority as Commander In Chief is only as
great as Congress is willing to delegate to him.

The President's authority as Commander In Chief is spelled out in the
constitution; "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the United States" art 2, sect.3

At any time, Congress
could pass a law stripping the President of whatever authority he
thinks he has over the military.

No they can't, since his power and role of Commander in Chief is granted to
the Office of the President by the Constitution, only a NEW Constitutional
Amendment can take them away.

The Constitution certainly does not
provide the President with some kind of Personal Military, to control
as he wishes.

Yes, in essence it does or rather by laws passed by Congress as per the
Constitution. The "War Powers Resolution" of 1973 states that when in times
of emergency (like the invasion of Afghanistan immediately after 9/11) the
President can authorize use of the military for up to 60 days without
Congressional authorization. That is why the Congress had to voted in Nov.
of 2001 to uphold the (already done) invasion and the occupation of
Afghanistan. In case of Iraq, the Congress authorized the action
beforehand. All the Congress can due as far as COMMAND of the troops in
Iraq is to pass a resolution ordering the troops home. Such a resolution
FAILED just 6 weeks ago 403 to 3.
No. As in all other cases, the President acts as the

agent and instrument of Congress, faithfully executing the laws enacted
by Congress, and subject to removal if he fails to perform this job.

Which is what he is doing, like when Congress authorized the invasion of
Iraq by House Joint Resolution #114 "Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution" 77 for to 23 against (Senate) 296 to103 (House).
Remember the one Kerry voted for, then against, before finally voting for?
[Snipped rest of summary of H.R. 2863, including idiotic comments like "The
power grab continues"
especially when it list the RESTRICTION of the Law upon the President, like
he has to give 15 day notice to Congress before taking certain actions.]

***COMMENT: Bush has basically told Congress and the American People to
go away and stop bothering him about anything to do with National
Defense. If this isn't grounds for impeachement and removal from
office, I can't imagine what would be.***

No CONGRESS has passed a new law by a very wide margin. The President is
now REQUIRED by the Constitution to enact that law. FAILURE of him to do so
could be considered an impeachable act.
Quit whining over laws passed by congress, and try to LEARN something about
Constitution and the different branches of government before spouting off
your BS.
Nuki Mouse.
.

User: "explorerthedog"
Title: Re: In Blatant display of stupidity, initial poster proves he known nothing.	01 Jan 2006 10:44:03 AM

I have no quarrel with the law that Congress passed and Bush signed.
It's fine with me. But what Bush did that I oppose was to issue an
official Presidential Statement in which he said that, yes, he signed
the bill into law, but no, he was not really going to execute it
completely. In particular he announced for all to see that he truly
believes he is not required to execute those portions of it with which
he disagrees. And he falsely cites the Constition as his supposed legal
basis for this refusal to follow and enforce this particular law, and
others like it which attempt to limit his personal power over National
Defense. Now, there has always been a tension - a litle power struggle,
like a border skirmish between towo countries - over the powers of the
President vs. Congress. This is nothing new. What is new is the vast
extent of Bush's attempt to consolidate and justify having this huge,
unchecked power all to himself. If I were in Congress, I would really
be furious over this. In fact, as a simple private American citizen, I
AM furious over this.
PS I have always observed that when some people call other people
stupid, it usually means that the name-caller cannot actually express
in words what he dislikes, so he just fires the cannon and calls the
other person , "STUPID!" It is okay to do this, and people do it all
the time.
Just for the record, where I WAS stupid was in not checking to see how
long Bush has been claiming this special "authority" to dictate all
Defense policy. I still haven't done this very well. Maybe today I
will. But if he has been doing it at all, it's wrong, and it should
have been challenged long before this.
Blessings to you. And also, I do recognize the value of your post. Our
system works best when many different people are watching and paying
attention and speaking up on what they believe, right or wrong. And you
Nukie Mouse are doing this very well. So keep up your good work! Maybe
we will agree on some future issues! Yours, Bill McGinnis.
.

User: "Captain Compassion"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	31 Dec 2005 10:37:46 PM

On 31 Dec 2005 15:54:12 -0800, "explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Does the President have any power over congress?

I didn't believe this press release when I first read it, but it's
true, according to a Presidential statement released yesterday, just
before the New Year's holiday.

Here is the statement, with my comments inserted.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
(Public Domain)

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 30, 2005

Statement by the President

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides
resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf
States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from
a potential influenza pandemic.

Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to
initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a
new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive
advance notice.

*** COMMENT: Here comes the power grab. He falsely claims
Constitutional authority he simply does not have. When he says "a
matter of comity," this means that he will do it only if he feels like
it, not because he has to do it. True, he doesn't need a "legislative
grant of authority," because he is able to act promptly on his own
authority to respond to emergencies, as long as Congress has not
specifically passed a law restricting his authority, as it did in this
case. But if Congress does enact a restriction on his authority, that
restriction must be followed, or else he can be impeached and removed
from office for failing to follow such law.

*** COMMENT, CONTINUED ***

Here are the exact words of the Constitution on these matters:

Congress Makes The Laws: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives." (See Article I, Section 1.) Yes,
the President can veto any law he does not accept, but Congress can
over-ride a veto with a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress.
Thus Congress can enact laws against the will of the President.

The President Administers The Laws That Congress Makes: "The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
(See Article II, Section 1.) And the President is required to execute
the laws faithfully, whether he agrees with them or not. Article II,
Section 3 says, " . . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed . . ." So the President does not get to pick and choose which
laws he will administer and which ones he will not administer. He is
required by the Constitution to administer faithfully each and every
law enacted by Congress.

If he fails in this obligation, Congress can remove him from office.
Article II, Section 4 says, "The President, Vice President and all
civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Failure to execute the laws would be a high
misdemeanor.) The House Of Representatives has the sole power of
impeachment: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." (See
Article I, Section 2.) And the Senate has the sole power to try these
Impeachments. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. (See Article I. Section 3.)

Furthermore, there is no limit on the degree to which Congress can
micro-manage the President, if it chooses to do so. Yes, the President
does have some implied powers, necessary to do his job, but these are
immediately over-ridden if Congress exercises its authority to enact a
law on the subject.

As Commander In Chief, the President is responsible for the day-to-day
administration of the military, including the responsibility for taking
quick action in the event of time-sensitive emergencies. Article II,
Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" But
quick action for emergencies is quite different from setting long-term
military policies.

Some people believe that the President magically acquires new
policy-making powers in his role as Commander In Chief. There is no
Constitutional basis for this belief. In fact, the Constitution
specifically says that Congress, not the President, has the authority
to establish all the rules for the "government and regulation" of the
military. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the
Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (See Article
I, Section 8.) This affirms that Congress can exert detailed control
over all aspects of the military, to whatever degree Congress chooses
to exert it. The President's authority as Commander In Chief is only as
great as Congress is willing to delegate to him. At any time, Congress
could pass a law stripping the President of whatever authority he
thinks he has over the military. The Constitution certainly does not
provide the President with some kind of Personal Military, to control
as he wishes. No. As in all other cases, the President acts as the
agent and instrument of Congress, faithfully executing the laws enacted
by Congress, and subject to removal if he fails to perform this job.

*** END OF COMMENT ****

(Now the President continues . . . )

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's
authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the
national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon
a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice
contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most
situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in
wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his
constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily
sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall
construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President.

*** COMMENT: The power grab continues ***

Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services,
other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international
organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or
humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive
branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer.
To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for
international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian
assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section
8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall
construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

*** COMMENT: The President's Constitutional requirement is to
faithfully execute whatever laws Congress may enact. ***

A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of
certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections
8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of
portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive
branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making
of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of
departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to
recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the
President shall judge necessary and expedient.

*** COMMENT: The power grab continues ***

Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional
committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling
solely for notification, as any other construction would be
inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to
integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent
with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief,
including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise
the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe
sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the
President from altering command and control relationships within the
Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be
inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the
authority of Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to
race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014,
8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford
equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act,
relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch
and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional
limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the
shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title
X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of
the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the
text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action
to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to
create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the
Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the
amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall
apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for
writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that
section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien
detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall
construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising
subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action,
including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section
1005.

Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to
require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior
to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law.
Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the
unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully
executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with
congressional committees or to involve them in executive
decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to
require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General
shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative
branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this
matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

Certain provisions in the Act purport to allocate funds for specified
purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers
that accompanied the Act or other Acts; to make changes in statements
of managers that accompanied various appropriations bills reported from
conferences in the past; or to direct compliance with a committee
report. Such provisions include section 8044 in Division A, and
sections 5022, 5023, and 5024 and language under the heading "Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations" in Division B,
of the Act. Other provisions of the Act, such as sections 8073 and 8082
in Division A, purport to give binding effect to legislative documents
not presented to the President. The executive branch shall construe all
these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and
presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.

***COMMENT: Bush has basically told Congress and the American People to
go away and stop bothering him about anything to do with National
Defense. If this isn't grounds for impeachement and removal from
office, I can't imagine what would be.***

Blessings to you. God help us all.
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director, LoveAllPeople.org

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 30, 2005.

--
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and
let them rewrite history." -- ***** Cheney 11/16/2005
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	31 Dec 2005 11:39:46 PM

Captain Compassion wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 15:54:12 -0800, "explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

......

Does the President have any power over congress?

I believe the President's powers over Congress are limited to the
following:
1) Veto Power (but this may be overridden by a two-thirds majority in
both houses)
2) Vice President is President of the Senate (and tie breaker)
3) Commander in Chief of the Military (operational command of the
military)
4) Recess Appointments
5) Emergency calling into session of one or both Houses of Congress
6) Can force adjournment when both Houses of Congress cannot agree on
one.
7) Compensation cannot be diminished.
8) May refuse to enforce certain laws
9) May refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes
10) Responsibility for making declarations (for example, declaring a
state of emergency) and promulgating lawful regulations and executive
orders
11) Executive privilege (refusal to submit to legislative subpoena)
12) Use of the bully pulpit to propose and advocate for laws

--
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and
let them rewrite history." -- ***** Cheney 11/16/2005

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike

"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net

User: "Hugh Gibbons"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	02 Jan 2006 11:09:55 PM

In article <1136093986.136846.63830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

Captain Compassion wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 15:54:12 -0800, "explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

.....

Does the President have any power over congress?

I believe the President's powers over Congress are limited to the
following:

1) Veto Power (but this may be overridden by a two-thirds majority in
both houses)
2) Vice President is President of the Senate (and tie breaker)
3) Commander in Chief of the Military (operational command of the
military)
4) Recess Appointments
5) Emergency calling into session of one or both Houses of Congress
6) Can force adjournment when both Houses of Congress cannot agree on
one.
7) Compensation cannot be diminished.
8) May refuse to enforce certain laws
9) May refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes
10) Responsibility for making declarations (for example, declaring a
state of emergency) and promulgating lawful regulations and executive
orders
11) Executive privilege (refusal to submit to legislative subpoena)
12) Use of the bully pulpit to propose and advocate for laws

Where'd you get 8 and 9?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	03 Jan 2006 12:22:15 AM

Hugh Gibbons wrote:

In article <1136093986.136846.63830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

Captain Compassion wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 15:54:12 -0800, "explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

.....

Does the President have any power over congress?

I believe the President's powers over Congress are limited to the
following:

1) Veto Power (but this may be overridden by a two-thirds majority in
both houses)
2) Vice President is President of the Senate (and tie breaker)
3) Commander in Chief of the Military (operational command of the
military)
4) Recess Appointments
5) Emergency calling into session of one or both Houses of Congress
6) Can force adjournment when both Houses of Congress cannot agree on
one.
7) Compensation cannot be diminished.
8) May refuse to enforce certain laws
9) May refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes
10) Responsibility for making declarations (for example, declaring a
state of emergency) and promulgating lawful regulations and executive
orders
11) Executive privilege (refusal to submit to legislative subpoena)
12) Use of the bully pulpit to propose and advocate for laws

Where'd you get 8 and 9?

8) I believe the right to refuse to enforce cetain laws pertains to
laws Congress passes (presumably over a Presidential veto) that the
President believes are unconstitutional, which would mean the impasse
would be settled by the Supreme Court.
9) I believe the right to refuse to spend money allocated for certain
purposes involves a right enjoyed by Presidents from Jefferson through
Nixon to impound funds, prior to the 1974 Budget Act, but that right
was briefly resurrected in the form of the Line Item Veto in 1996. The
Supreme Court Subsequently ruled it unconstitutional, but the issue is
still the subject of debate, so I believe it arguably belongs on the
list.
Both can be found on a list that shows up on numerous sights (and
includes 7 of the 12 items I listed), including the following, on a
spreadsheet in the section "Three Branch System" in the row titled
"Legistlative" and the column titled "Executive Counterbalance".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances
.

User: "Hugh Gibbons"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	04 Jan 2006 09:30:08 PM

In article <1136269335.853202.77700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:
8) I believe the right to refuse to enforce cetain laws pertains to
laws Congress passes (presumably over a Presidential veto) that the
President believes are unconstitutional, which would mean the impasse
would be settled by the Supreme Court.
9) I believe the right to refuse to spend money allocated for certain
purposes involves a right enjoyed by Presidents from Jefferson through
Nixon to impound funds, prior to the 1974 Budget Act, but that right
was briefly resurrected in the form of the Line Item Veto in 1996. The
Supreme Court Subsequently ruled it unconstitutional, but the issue is
still the subject of debate, so I believe it arguably belongs on the
list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

I'd be happier if you referred to the Constitution or established
precedent. The Wikipedia article is unsourced.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	04 Jan 2006 11:47:55 PM

Hugh Gibbons wrote:

In article <1136269335.853202.77700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
tomaxo@aol.com wrote:

8) I believe the right to refuse to enforce cetain laws pertains to
laws Congress passes (presumably over a Presidential veto) that the
President believes are unconstitutional, which would mean the impasse
would be settled by the Supreme Court.

9) I believe the right to refuse to spend money allocated for certain
purposes involves a right enjoyed by Presidents from Jefferson through
Nixon to impound funds, prior to the 1974 Budget Act, but that right
was briefly resurrected in the form of the Line Item Veto in 1996. The
Supreme Court Subsequently ruled it unconstitutional, but the issue is
still the subject of debate, so I believe it arguably belongs on the
list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

I'd be happier if you referred to the Constitution or established
precedent. The Wikipedia article is unsourced.

I'm not making my observation from a pretense of legal scholarship,
only from what I am familiar with (which is why I use the words "I
believe", as opposed to something of the "the Constitution states, in
Article....." variety. More or less in the same maner I would point
out the line of succession for presidential authority, which I can tell
you with a degree of certainty but do not know what part of the
Constitution references it.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	05 Jan 2006 12:33:44 AM

Hugh Gibbons wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

I'd be happier if you referred to the Constitution or established
precedent. The Wikipedia article is unsourced.

In the name of providing you with something a bit more substantiative
to reference, I did a little online research and did find the following
language in a discussion of the 1974 Budget Act, which would suggest
that the President had previously had a degree of unrestricted
Impoundment authority, though this measure itself was designed to hemn
it in by requiring Congressional approval.
"The Act also codified the President's impoundment authority (in Title
X, also known as the Impoundment Control Act), dividing impoundments
into two distinct classes with different procedures for congressional
consideration: rescissions, (or permanent cancellations, of budget
authority (which would require congressional approval), and temporary
deferrals of expenditures (which would remain in force unless rejected
by Congress). "
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2y.htm
Another article discribes the 1974 Budget Act (Also known as the
Impoundment Control Act ) thus: "The Impoundment Control Act, which
was enacted in 1974, requires that the President notify Congress
whenever the Executive Branch withholds, delays, or precludes the
obligation or expenditure of budget authority. There are two types of
impoundment: the temporary deferral of funds and rescission proposals
to permanently cancel spending. The Act also prescribes the rules that
must be followed whenever the executive branch impounds funds. See
section 112 for instructions on reporting deferrals and rescission
proposals and the rules that must be followed"
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8SAN62lLfP0J:www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/2002/S15.pdf+1974+Budget+Act&hl=en
Here is also a quote from the Congressional Testimony of Stephen Moore
of the Cato Institute, which discusses the use of the line item veto by
then President Clinton as a tool for cutting spending by refusing to
fund certain legislation:
"In 1997 President Clinton used this new budget cutting tool 82 times
to delete unnecessary expenditures in 11 spending bills. The total
savings have come to nearly $2 billion over five years. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm032300.html
Below is a legal book review, which presents counter arguments to the
issue of Presidential authority to refuse to enforce certain laws, but
makes it clear it is a right many modern Presidents have claimed to
have. That said, even in his dismissal of the primary arguments being
made in favor of such rights, the author does concede the following:
"May argues that under very narrow circumstances, a refusal to enforce,
or a decision to defy a law is legitimate. Such actions are permissible
1) if defiance is the only way to bring the issue to the judiciary's
attention for proper resolution, 2) if the unconstitutionality of the
law must be clearly supported by the text of the Constitution itself,
the intent of the founders, or prior Supreme Court rulings, 3) if the
White House has exhausted all other possible remedies, and 4) if, when
the executive chooses to defy the law, it takes all possible steps to
ensure that judicial review does occur. Such conditions have never been
met in practice."
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/may98.htm
There is nothing I particualary favor about these cites or opinions
except they I believe you might find them to be more legitimate sources
from a legal perspective.
I hope this is useful to you.
.

User: "Hugh Gibbons"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	05 Jan 2006 05:53:32 PM

In article <1136442824.868562.274800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

Hugh Gibbons wrote:

In article <1136269335.853202.77700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

8) I believe the right to refuse to enforce cetain laws pertains to
laws Congress passes (presumably over a Presidential veto) that the
President believes are unconstitutional, which would mean the impasse
would be settled by the Supreme Court.

9) I believe the right to refuse to spend money allocated for certain
purposes involves a right enjoyed by Presidents from Jefferson through
Nixon to impound funds, prior to the 1974 Budget Act, but that right
was briefly resurrected in the form of the Line Item Veto in 1996. The
Supreme Court Subsequently ruled it unconstitutional, but the issue is
still the subject of debate, so I believe it arguably belongs on the
list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

I'd be happier if you referred to the Constitution or established
precedent. The Wikipedia article is unsourced.

I would regard that as giving authority to the Executive, rather than
taking back authority he already had. The Constitution gives Congress
the power to decide how and when to spend money. But I agree that
the Executive now has that authority, until and unless Congress
rescinds the Act.

Here is also a quote from the Congressional Testimony of Stephen Moore
of the Cato Institute, which discusses the use of the line item veto by
then President Clinton as a tool for cutting spending by refusing to
fund certain legislation:
"In 1997 President Clinton used this new budget cutting tool 82 times
to delete unnecessary expenditures in 11 spending bills. The total
savings have come to nearly $2 billion over five years. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm032300.html

But the LIV was ruled unconstitutional, so it doesn't apply to the
current situation.

Below is a legal book review, which presents counter arguments to the
issue of Presidential authority to refuse to enforce certain laws, but
makes it clear it is a right many modern Presidents have claimed to
have.

Sure. But Presidents are in the business of power, so they claim
all kinds of authority, hoping that nobody will have the backbone to
stand up to them.

That said, even in his dismissal of the primary arguments being
made in favor of such rights, the author does concede the following:
"May argues that under very narrow circumstances, a refusal to enforce,
or a decision to defy a law is legitimate. Such actions are permissible
1) if defiance is the only way to bring the issue to the judiciary's
attention for proper resolution, 2) if the unconstitutionality of the
law must be clearly supported by the text of the Constitution itself,
the intent of the founders, or prior Supreme Court rulings, 3) if the
White House has exhausted all other possible remedies, and 4) if, when
the executive chooses to defy the law, it takes all possible steps to
ensure that judicial review does occur. Such conditions have never been
met in practice."
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/may98.htm

In other words, the author thinks it's highly dubious that the President
would be acting legally if he should defy Congress, but it's clear where
the idea comes from.
As a practical matter, it's a dangerous game for him to play, because
you can only push Congress so far.

There is nothing I particualary favor about these cites or opinions
except they I believe you might find them to be more legitimate sources
from a legal perspective.

I hope this is useful to you.

It is, thanks.
.

User: "KenStahl"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional AuthorityOver Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional CrisisWith Republican-Controlled Congress	31 Dec 2005 07:44:28 PM

explorerthedog wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Just a few more hours until the year when the Democrats
start taking over Congress.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
.

User: *" US "*
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	01 Jan 2006 10:24:07 AM

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:44:28 -0500, KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:

explorerthedog wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Just a few more hours until the year when the Democrats
start taking over Congress.

Won't happen: the electronic 'voting' fix is in.
.

User: "Captain Compassion"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	01 Jan 2006 12:52:12 PM

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:24:07 -0500, * US * wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:44:28 -0500, KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:

explorerthedog wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Just a few more hours until the year when the Democrats
start taking over Congress.

Won't happen: the electronic 'voting' fix is in.

You guys are all ready setting yourselves up for failure. Sweet.
--
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and
let them rewrite history." -- ***** Cheney 11/16/2005
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.

User: *" US "*
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	01 Jan 2006 03:36:48 PM

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:52:12 -0800, Captain Compaction <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

... failure. Sweet.

Why do you hate Americans?
Do you support depriving them of their
votes because you serve the terrorists?
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:44:28 -0500, KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:

explorerthedog wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Just a few more hours until the year when the Democrats
start taking over Congress.

Won't happen: the electronic 'voting' fix is in.
.

User: "Captain Compassion"
Title: Re: In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis With Republican-Controlled Congress	01 Jan 2006 11:25:31 PM

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:36:48 -0500, * US * wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:52:12 -0800, Captain Compaction <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

... failure. Sweet.

Why do you hate Americans?

Do you support depriving them of their
votes because you serve the terrorists?

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:44:28 -0500, KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:

explorerthedog wrote:

In Blatant Power Grab, Bush Denies All Congressional Authority Over
Himself In Matters Of National Defense, Provokes Constitutional Crisis
With Republican-Controlled Congress

Just a few more hours until the year when the Democrats
start taking over Congress.

Won't happen: the electronic 'voting' fix is in.

Actually I agree with you. There shouldn't be electronic voting. I
liked those Butterfly ballots they had in Florida in 2000. Too
difficult for most Democrats to figure out.
--
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their me