Hey Bully! On Those Signing Statements? He's Not In Office Yet

[Kathianne]

Can't wait to get his hands on the pen:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama


Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 31 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."....

[Psychoblues]

The long knives are being sharpened and the safety and security of Americans and their environment, reputation and well being is now being taken seriously by a serious President and his still forming administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God the long nightmare is coming to an end soon and very soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: WaPo

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees are rushing to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy...................................

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html?hpid=topnews

The hours will be long, the work will be difficult but now that adults will be back in charge there will be substantial enjoyment by all that truely love, appreciate and stand by the genuine principles and values of the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::beer::clap::laugh2::beer::salute:

[Yurt]

as he should. a good leader would do the same thing. obama has good coaching and lots of power players with lots of money and power supporting him and giving him advice. i expect no less from the puppet.

[manu1959]

great....from an inarticulate idiot to an articulate idiot....

[Sitarro]

I wonder what Barry the Chimp's handlers will get him to do first.

[Yurt]

I wonder what Barry the Chimp's handlers will get him to do first.

destroy speech, watch....it will happen, little by little and the code word is "fair"

[Kathianne]

Merged threads.

[stephanie]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

[Kathianne]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

I must admit to having a bit of a giggle when I saw that. I do believe those 'signing statements' were one of Bully's reasons for thinking GW should be impeached. ;)

[bullypulpit]

Can't wait to get his hands on the pen:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

A 6/27/06 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that:

<blockquote>We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President's unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President on the enactment of laws. But this President has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which part of the law the President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.</blockquote>

The results of this hearing were cited in the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, which I will refer to as the "ABA Task Force" for the rest of the discussion.

The following recommendations were the result of the unanimous agreement of the members of the Task Force, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative...

<blockquote>- Oppose as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers a President's issuance of signing statements to claim authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.</blockquote>

The rest of the recommendations can be read <a href=http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf>HERE</a>

The upshot is that even Bill Clinton ran their signing statements through the Office of Legal Counsel regarding his authority to challenge or reject portions of a bill he found controversial. George W. Bush, on the other hand, ran bills through Dick Cheney's office in search of perceived threats to the "unitary executive", a concept found nowhere in the Constitution.

Much as you may be inclined to believe otherwise, President Bush's use of signing statements goes far beyond that of his predecessors...From simply stating views on a given law or provision therein...To asserting authority to ignore provisions of laws he has signed. Article 7 of the Constitution plainly states:

<blockquote>Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, <b>shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives</b>, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.</blockquote>

He can either sign the laws or veto them and send them back to Congress and nothing else.

Nor does the Constitution provide him the authority to ignore or fail to enforce laws or provisions thereof which he disagrees with as is stated in Article 2, section 3:

<blockquote>He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; <b>he shall take Care that <i>the Laws be faithfully executed</i></b>...</blockquote>

Again, the President cannot choose which laws or provisions thereof he will or will not enforce.

Good night, dear lady.

[bullypulpit]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

I'm sure. :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

I wonder if it's catfish bait or bream bait?


I'm sure. :laugh2:

Crickets or worms? Chicken guts or rotten beef?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

BTW, bp, excellent rebuttal to the original question and observation!!!!!!!!!!! Outstanding, IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::beer::clap::laugh2::beer::salute:

[Kathianne]

A 6/27/06 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that:

<blockquote>We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President's unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President on the enactment of laws. But this President has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which part of the law the President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.</blockquote>

The results of this hearing were cited in the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, which I will refer to as the "ABA Task Force" for the rest of the discussion.

The following recommendations were the result of the unanimous agreement of the members of the Task Force, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative...

<blockquote>- Oppose as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers a President's issuance of signing statements to claim authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.</blockquote>

The rest of the recommendations can be read <a href=http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf>HERE</a>

The upshot is that even Bill Clinton ran their signing statements through the Office of Legal Counsel regarding his authority to challenge or reject portions of a bill he found controversial. George W. Bush, on the other hand, ran bills through Dick Cheney's office in search of perceived threats to the "unitary executive", a concept found nowhere in the Constitution.

Much as you may be inclined to believe otherwise, President Bush's use of signing statements goes far beyond that of his predecessors...From simply stating views on a given law or provision therein...To asserting authority to ignore provisions of laws he has signed. Article 7 of the Constitution plainly states:

<blockquote>Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, <b>shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives</b>, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.</blockquote>

He can either sign the laws or veto them and send them back to Congress and nothing else.

Nor does the Constitution provide him the authority to ignore or fail to enforce laws or provisions thereof which he disagrees with as is stated in Article 2, section 3:

<blockquote>He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; <b>he shall take Care that <i>the Laws be faithfully executed</i></b>...</blockquote>

Again, the President cannot choose which laws or provisions thereof he will or will not enforce.

Good night, dear lady.

Good morning, sir. My point those few years back, my point last evening was that presidents tend to use the powers they have. Whatever restraints they may place on themselves are more than likely a combination of situations and personality.

Indeed as long as legal I'd allow the system to work, those pesky checks & balances. For one reason or another when not in control the tendency of the Democrats is to try to 'ban' certain powers. Sometimes they are saved from themselves, like when they tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate. If you'd had your druthers, you'd have taken this executive option away. My guess is we will see Obama using it quite frequently, as a way to get things he wants accomplished with little or no noise. Indeed it's as close to a line item veto as available.

[retiredman]

again...Kathianne...I don't mean to belabor this point, but signing statements are used to limit the force or scope of laws. I do not know if any othe rpresident used them to the extent that Bush did, but if they did, I would disagree with their excessive use regardless of the political party of the president. Executive orders are a different sort of thing. Obama's plans to use them regardling stem cell research and off shore drilling are perfectly within his rights as president and I would not question their use, or the right of the president to use them, also regardless of party.

[Psychoblues]

"Pesky checks and balances"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF are you talking about, Kat?!?!?!?!??!?!??!!??!?!??!!?



Good morning, sir. My point those few years back, my point last evening was that presidents tend to use the powers they have. Whatever restraints they may place on themselves are more than likely a combination of situations and personality.

Indeed as long as legal I'd allow the system to work, those pesky checks & balances. For one reason or another when not in control the tendency of the Democrats is to try to 'ban' certain powers. Sometimes they are saved from themselves, like when they tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate. If you'd had your druthers, you'd have taken this executive option away. My guess is we will see Obama using it quite frequently, as a way to get things he wants accomplished with little or no noise. Indeed it's as close to a line item veto as available.

The 'lil jerk abused his powers again and again and the American people, including many Democrats, excused him for it due to "war-time" considerations. No president has ever violated the American trust to the degree that the 'lil one has and I hope no other ever will again. Just think of the damage to our national reputation and the distrust those idiotic statements have generated amongst true Americans?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? The concept is astounding in the negative sense at best but more like power mongering in the least.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

:salute::beer::clap::laugh2::beer::salute:

Psychoblues

[bullypulpit]

Good morning, sir. My point those few years back, my point last evening was that presidents tend to use the powers they have. Whatever restraints they may place on themselves are more than likely a combination of situations and personality.

Indeed as long as legal I'd allow the system to work, those pesky checks & balances. For one reason or another when not in control the tendency of the Democrats is to try to 'ban' certain powers. Sometimes they are saved from themselves, like when they tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate. If you'd had your druthers, you'd have taken this executive option away. My guess is we will see Obama using it quite frequently, as a way to get things he wants accomplished with little or no noise. Indeed it's as close to a line item veto as available.

Unfortunately, Bush did not, and does not have the power to choose which laws or portions portions thereof he will choose to ignore or fail to enforce, which is exactly what he's done in his use of signing statements. He can only sign the bill or veto it in its entirety. The Supreme Court already ruled on this when it struck down a presidential line item veto as being an unconstitutional abridgment of the separation of powers. Oh, and that was the Senate Republicans that tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate with the so called "nuclear option".

So long as signing statements and executive orders respect the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, I don't care who uses them. Bush stepped over the line, and has yet to be held accountable for it, not that he ever will at this late date in his presidency. But a lack of accountability has been a hallmark of his life and his presidency.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunately, Bush did not, and does not have the power to choose which laws or portions portions thereof he will choose to ignore or fail to enforce, which is exactly what he's done in his use of signing statements. He can only sign the bill or veto it in its entirety. The Supreme Court already ruled on this when it struck down a presidential line item veto as being an unconstitutional abridgment of the separation of powers. Oh, and that was the Senate Republicans that tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate with the so called "nuclear option".

So long as signing statements and executive orders respect the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, I don't care who uses them. Bush stepped over the line, and has yet to be held accountable for it, not that he ever will at this late date in his presidency. But a lack of accountability has been a hallmark of his life and his presidency.
Ok. As long as you hold Obama to same standard. Bush issued fewer than Clinton, perhaps the trend is set. I just found it ironic, that before even taking office, the 'executive powers' were being brought up by MSM. No clarity given, what they call 'executive powers' seem to fall within the purview of signing statements. In any case, other than this minnie flame, he will have the powers. My point was that neither party out of power should be too quick for abolishing powers they may well want, for good reasons, down the line.

[bullypulpit]

Ok. As long as you hold Obama to same standard. Bush issued fewer than Clinton, perhaps the trend is set. I just found it ironic, that before even taking office, the 'executive powers' were being brought up by MSM. No clarity given, what they call 'executive powers' seem to fall within the purview of signing statements. In any case, other than this minnie flame, he will have the powers. My point was that neither party out of power should be too quick for abolishing powers they may well want, for good reasons, down the line.

Indeed, Bush did issue fewer signing statements than Clinton, but Clinton did not use the signing statements to declare what law or parts thereof he would ignore or refuse to enforce, which is what Bush did. If Clinton had substantial issues with a bill he vetoed it and sent it back to Congress, if he didn't, he signed it. Any signing statements were simply opinions about aspects of the bill he found troubling, but not worth vetoing. And this is all the Constitution allows the President to do.

[Little-Acorn]

As I pointed out every time people here started bitching about Bush's "signing statements":

They do not have the force of law. They are nothing more than decorations. Fripperies. Completely unimportant frills.

Only things PASSED BY CONGRESS have the force of law when signed by the President. "Signing statements" haven't been. The Prez can write anything he wants at the bottom of a bill, it will make no difference whatsoever. True for Bush, equally true for Obama when he becomes President.

Signing statements, whether written by Bush or by Obama, are a complete non-issue.

[Psychoblues]

Au Contraire, LA. Pre bush signing statements have been used for exactly as you intimate but the lil' one changed all that. He uses them to subvert and modify legislation all the time.


As I pointed out every time people here started bitching about Bush's "signing statements":

They do not have the force of law. They are nothing more than decorations. Fripperies. Completely unimportant frills.

Only things PASSED BY CONGRESS have the force of law when signed by the President. "Signing statements" haven't been. The Prez can write anything he wants at the bottom of a bill, it will make no difference whatsoever. True for Bush, equally true for Obama when he becomes President.

Signing statements, whether written by Bush or by Obama, are a complete non-issue.

He has a choice to either sign the legislation accompanied with an understanding of it's meaning to him with a signing statement or to veto it. Rather than veto it the lil' one signs it then effectively reverses it's meaning with a signing statement. That, my friend, is one of the reasons why the United States of America has now clearly rejected for the most part the ideology of the unitary president.

Obama, now being faced with these same type issues and decisions, would do very well by adhering to pre bush legislative practises and considerations and I think he will. bush, however, has made significant strides in diminishing our democracy by his use of legislative subversions and there may be in the near future a need for our independent legislative branch to permanently restrict actions and orders from the executive. That, after all, is one of the reasons why they exist.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::beer::clap::laugh2::beer::salute:

Psychoblues

[bullypulpit]

As I pointed out every time people here started bitching about Bush's "signing statements":

They do not have the force of law. They are nothing more than decorations. Fripperies. Completely unimportant frills.

Only things PASSED BY CONGRESS have the force of law when signed by the President. "Signing statements" haven't been. The Prez can write anything he wants at the bottom of a bill, it will make no difference whatsoever. True for Bush, equally true for Obama when he becomes President.

Signing statements, whether written by Bush or by Obama, are a complete non-issue.

Bush's signing statements do indeed make an assertion of presidential authority which undermines the the will of Congress and the Constitution, particularly those issued with the intent to assert the will of the "unitary executive". Bush has asserted, on numerous occasions, that he can ignore a law or provisions of a law, regardless of the intent of Congress. There is simply no provision for this in the Constitution. If he objects to a bill his only option is to veto it, not sign it then declare his intent to ignore it.

Bush has used signing statements to nullify key portions of laws in an assertion of, and he is the only President to have ever done so. And his assertion of the privilege of a "unitary executive" is nothing more than an assertion of unchecked presidential power which undermines the doctrine of the Separation of Powers and the very foundation of liberty itself.

This principle is clearly outlined in the second paragraph of <a href=http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed51.htm>the Federalist Papers, No. 51</a>:

<blockquote><b>In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government</b>, which to a certain extent <b>is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty</b>, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. </blockquote>

[bullypulpit]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

Still waiting...? Or was your reading comprehension simply not up to the task?
:coffee:

[Psychoblues]

Maybe she's taken a liking to those chicken guts and is back down at the bait shop pickin' up a quart or two to hold her over 'till the 1st of the month?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


Still waiting...? Or was your reading comprehension simply not up to the task?
:coffee:

:laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Well you just knew this would come up again? I can't wait to see Bully go nuclear regarding Obama's use of signing statements:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_31-2009_06_06.shtml#1244245053


Friday, June 5, 2009

[John Elwood, June 5, 2009 at 7:37pm]
Presidential Signing Statements -- The More Things Change: I'm sure it's only a matter of time until the ABA denounces as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers" President Obama's use of signing statements to voice constitutional concerns about legislation he signs into law. See ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Report at 5 (July 24, 2006) ("ABA Task Force Report"). The President quietly issued another such signing statement on Tuesday, the fourth constitutional signing statement of his young presidency....

For those of you keeping score at home, based on the listing of signing statements on coherentbabble.com (which includes both constitutional signing statements and uncontroversial rhetorical or laudatory signing statements), President Obama has issued more constitutional signing statements than President Bush had at this point in his presidency (by my count, four versus one).

[Kathianne]

*bump* I figure Bully must have missed this.

[red states rule]

*bump* I figure Bully must have missed this.

I have noticed that BP, and his liberal friends, have "missed" alot of posts and threads about Obama, his policies, and how on some things - Obama is doing the same things Pres Bush did - andthey were pissed off over it

Looks like perhaps they are having issues with their computer and can't respond Kat - it can't be they have double standards and are ignoring the actions of Obama :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

Nothin' to miss. The signing statement was regarding a ceremonial function, not stating that the POTUS may ignore any parts of the law he disagrees with as his predecessor did with major pieces of legislation...completely undermining the oversight function of Congress and the separation of powers as Bush did with, amongst many others...

<blockquote>March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders. - <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/>The Boston Globe</a></blockquote>

Nice try guys...

[Kathianne]

Nothin' to miss. The signing statement was regarding a ceremonial function, not stating that the POTUS may ignore any parts of the law he disagrees with as his predecessor did with major pieces of legislation...completely undermining the oversight function of Congress and the separation of powers as Bush did with, amongst many others...

<blockquote>March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders. - <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/>The Boston Globe</a></blockquote>

Nice try guys...

Well perhaps the one, but:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r111:S23MR9-0018:

and there's more Bully, but you can look them up yourself and get all hot and calling for investigations...

[glockmail]

Hey Bully, can we call Obama "McChimpy" like you did to Bush for 8 years?