I'll torture anyway if I want to (and yes, I want to!)
These bizarre "signing statements," in which the president announces his intention to disregard the very law he just inked, are in large part the handiwork of one...Sam Alito.
As reported by the Chicago Tribune, Twenty years ago, a Reagan administration lawyer proposed that when the president signs a bill passed by Congress, he should use the occasion to declare how he interprets it." The President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," wrote Samuel Alito in a 1986 memo. Spelling out those thoughts "would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law," he added.
Wouldn't that be lovely, a Supreme Court vote endorsing the grabbing of more power by the most rapacious, power-drunk administration in history.
Visit here for more on Alito.
4 comments:
I was watching CNN the other day where the discussion was about the Preznit's abuse of executive power. The first caller (an admitted Liberal) expressed his disappointment in the admistration's blanket use of illegal wiretaps, in total disregard of written law. The second caller (revealing herself to be a Republican through her Granny Clampit-like eloquence) proceeded to start screaming about Arabs and 9/11. The trampling of little documents like The Bill Of Rights and The Constitution were referred to as mere trifles.
Redneck America will never hold Drinky accountable for any revelation of corruption. What's a little made-up story about WMDs in contrast to a splotch of jizz on some fat girl's dress, right? If they weren't phased by Bush & Dick not testifying under oath before the 9/11 commission, they certainly won't be now...or ever. They'll just continue to watch Fox (the only REAL news network), worship their caucasian deity (who was born in the Middle East) and any indiscretion (in the name of 9/11) will be okie dokie.
Though I'm tempted to follow Schmidlap's advice and start digging my own bunker, I'd rather hold out hope that in the next election, enough Liberal leaners will enter the booth. The thought of the alternative, which we're already being handed a heaping helping of, is far too grim to consider.
Sorry for the length of this, Pete, but I'd also like to give a shout-out to my homies checking in from DC. Yo! I've got my taxes from the last five years sorted and ready to go. I'm available for "interviews" any weekday, except monday.
Cow
ards
I fail to understand what cows or ards have to do with anything.
Cows have to do with this the following:
I find exceptionally insulting references to the guy I work for in terms such as "drinky" or "chimpy" etc. I find gratuitously insulting the concept that people who understand the reality of certain aspects of military theory/military reality -- even though distasteful -- as necessarily being "redneck America" or "mouth-breather in Idiot America".
People who disagree with the unknowledgeable bar-grousing malcontents are not necessarily the equal-n-opposite unknowledgeable bar-grousing malcontent. Sometimes they actually know something.
Not only do you have legal distinctions being equivocated against political shinola, you've got those whose military theory begins and ends with Hogan's Heros reruns defining what is and isn't sound battle tactics.
Courts have historically drawn a playpen for the president to conduct "executive privilege" -- just like they've draw similar playpens for cops to conduct "implied consent" and TSA weenies to do ditto. It is hardly a stretch to conclude that listening in on phone calls to or from known terrorists, during a war against same, without filling out the proper paperwork is so far afield of "executive privilege" that it would justify the sheer volume of urine we've seen spilled into the nation's knickers.
I realize that people who are very good auto mechanics and electrical contractors probably aren't hip on the fine points of ConLaw, but for those unknowledgeable to be spouting off with certainty about subjects they know nothing of is ... grossly misplaced arrogance.
This is a matter for the lawyers and the courts to decide, not for the partisanly disgruntled. The longer and louder people who know nothing about the subject get their $0.02 in, the greater the likelihood that the government will do something stupid to solve it in order to make *us* happy, and not what is smart. The Law of Unintended Consequences is not a good thing to take chances with.
Post a Comment