King George II
(Alternate link to Advocates coverage of this story is here.)
What do you call the ruler of a country who considers himself to be above the law, able to ignore it whenever it inconveniences him? Conceited, arrogant, and dangerous are some terms. Dictator would be another. If that ruler also thinks his rule comes from divine mandate, then perhaps king might be the most accurate.
The articles linked to above and in the title detail a dangerous new expansion of presidential powers, to the point where Bush has decided that legislative and judicial checks and balances do not apply to him. I've long held that all presidents are more or less roughly equal in political corruptness and incompetence. Bush, however, seems to be setting himself quite apart from previous presidents who, despite their politicking and demagoguery, nevertheless seemed to understand the importance of having a balance of power between the 3 branches of gov't.
The gist of the above articles, is that Bush has been attaching hundreds (750+) of "signing statements" to bills he signs, essentially saying that he retains the right (what right?) to ignore any such law as he sees fit. Gee, can we do that too? Signing a bill into law, and then attaching a signing statement to it, is exactly analogous to a little kid who says "I promise" while keeping his fingers crossed behind his back.
This in itself is a pretty serious thing for a president to do, but the exact types of bills Bush has been doing this with should be a real cause for alarm. Some bills that Bush feels he needn't comply with include:
The next presidential election is going to be a mess. The Repubs will pick a candidate who is as close to Bush's policies as possible. The Dems, in turn, will not feel obligated to choose a truly qualified candidate either; their slogan will be, "Even a garden slug would make a better president than Bush." Which is probably just what they'll pick as a candidate.
I fear that the next president, Dem or Repub, instead of reversing all the damage that Bush is doing, will decide that they feel just fine with the level of expanded presidential power that Bush has left them. That, I think, is one of the worst parts of all this. The effects of bad presidents don't go away when they leave office; the policy changes, expansions of power, new bills & programs, & new practices have a bad habit of sticking around many years or decades into the future. As a president, Bush will most certainly leave quite a legacy; it's just too bad that the results of that legacy may prove disastrous for this country.
What do you call the ruler of a country who considers himself to be above the law, able to ignore it whenever it inconveniences him? Conceited, arrogant, and dangerous are some terms. Dictator would be another. If that ruler also thinks his rule comes from divine mandate, then perhaps king might be the most accurate.
The articles linked to above and in the title detail a dangerous new expansion of presidential powers, to the point where Bush has decided that legislative and judicial checks and balances do not apply to him. I've long held that all presidents are more or less roughly equal in political corruptness and incompetence. Bush, however, seems to be setting himself quite apart from previous presidents who, despite their politicking and demagoguery, nevertheless seemed to understand the importance of having a balance of power between the 3 branches of gov't.
The gist of the above articles, is that Bush has been attaching hundreds (750+) of "signing statements" to bills he signs, essentially saying that he retains the right (what right?) to ignore any such law as he sees fit. Gee, can we do that too? Signing a bill into law, and then attaching a signing statement to it, is exactly analogous to a little kid who says "I promise" while keeping his fingers crossed behind his back.
This in itself is a pretty serious thing for a president to do, but the exact types of bills Bush has been doing this with should be a real cause for alarm. Some bills that Bush feels he needn't comply with include:
- military rules & regulations, such as how military prisons are operated (secret & otherwise)
- protections for nuclear safety whistleblowers
- requirements that he inform Congress on immigration service problems
- requirements that he inform Congress on how he's putting the Patriot Act to use
- requirements that he inform Congress on funding secret military operations
- Congressional oversight of presidential actions
- a ban on military combat engagement in Colombia
- bans against the use of torture
- bans against the use of information collected illegally in direct violation of the 4th Amendment
The next presidential election is going to be a mess. The Repubs will pick a candidate who is as close to Bush's policies as possible. The Dems, in turn, will not feel obligated to choose a truly qualified candidate either; their slogan will be, "Even a garden slug would make a better president than Bush." Which is probably just what they'll pick as a candidate.
I fear that the next president, Dem or Repub, instead of reversing all the damage that Bush is doing, will decide that they feel just fine with the level of expanded presidential power that Bush has left them. That, I think, is one of the worst parts of all this. The effects of bad presidents don't go away when they leave office; the policy changes, expansions of power, new bills & programs, & new practices have a bad habit of sticking around many years or decades into the future. As a president, Bush will most certainly leave quite a legacy; it's just too bad that the results of that legacy may prove disastrous for this country.
posted by Unknown at
5/24/2006 02:17:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home