New FEMA Head Doesn't Require any Experience according to Bush

[Black&Tan]

This is mindboggling...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/06/bush-fema-signing-statement/

or

http://www.progressiveu.org/203905-let-me-get-this-straight-bush-objects-to-fema-leader-having-to-have-experience-with-disasters

or

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles/2006/bush_defies_congress_authority.php

The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has “a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management” and “not less than five years of executive leadership." Bush has decided this is too restrictive. In fact, even though Congress enacted this law to eliminate cronyism and ensure we have a qualified individual in charge, Bush feels it encroaches on his power to appoint whomever he chooses, regardless of qualifications. And he sneaked this in with a signing statement, so the nobody was able to raise an objection, either within Congress or the media.

[Black&Tan]

At the end of the reclaim democracy website, I was particularly taken with the following paragraphs....

===================

Bush's use of signing statements has attracted increasing attention over the past year. In December 2005, Bush asserted that he can bypass a statutory ban on torture. In March 2006, the president said he can disobey oversight provisions in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill.

In all, Bush has challenged more than 800 laws enacted since he took office, most of which he said intruded on his constitutional powers as president and commander in chief. By contrast, all previous presidents challenged a combined total of about 600 laws.

At the same time, Bush has virtually abandoned his veto power, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Bush has vetoed just one bill since taking office, the fewest of any president since the 19th century.

Earlier this year, the American Bar Association declared that Bush's use of signing statements was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.”

Last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush's signing statements are “an integral part” of his “comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power” at the expense of the legislative branch.

========================

How is this legal? Isn't this akin to Congress passing a law that says murder is illegal and the President using a signing statement to say "not me." With no oversight, he is in essence making his own law. Am I wrong?

[zimv20]

With no oversight, he is in essence making his own law. Am I wrong?
no. and it goes further than oversight, he swore to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. though legal scholars may debate things within the letter of the law, there is no way to claim it doesn't violate the spirit.

[Thomas Veil]

Bush has decided this is too restrictive. In fact, even though Congress enacted this law to eliminate cronyism and ensure we have a qualified individual in charge, Bush feels it encroaches on his power to appoint whomever he chooses, regardless of qualifications.Obviously Bush would rather hire a corporate contributor than someone qualified.

The fact, however, that he's now using these signing statements for such relatively trivial stuff, without even a pretense of "national security", is alarming.

The man just doesn't obey the law. In his mind, he's exempt.

Not sure how that makes him much different from any banana republic despot.

And yeah, the fact that he swore to uphold the Constitution and now regularly violates it? Unequivocally, positively, without a question or a doubt, impeachment material.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush has been allowed by the republicans to play King. Its why Congress must go. Bush just keeps ignoring Law after Law after Law. I just wonder when America will wake up to this man if ever.

[skunk]

You lot have been truly taken to the cleaners by this gang, haven't you?


My condolences, but please don't let it happen again. Ever.

[Music_Producer]

You lot have been truly taken to the cleaners by this gang, haven't you?


My condolences, but please don't let it happen again. Ever.

Don't let it happen again? I wish skunk. Almost half the people in this country don't care what the President does, as long as he's a 'God fearing' person and goes 'with his gut instinct'

Maybe when you come down here I can show you around.. you'll be amazed at how stupid people here can be. :D

[AP_piano295]

Bush has been allowed by the republicans to play King. Its why Congress must go. Bush just keeps ignoring Law after Law after Law. I just wonder when America will wake up to this man if ever.

i'm betting it'll be when he tries to run for the 5th time....someone might figure it out.

[FFTT]

We have to keep in mind that FEMA's prime directive is continuation of government.

Obviously Bush wants to appoint someone to continue his agenda of corruption, deception and waste.

I doubt any of Bush's choices even have basic camping or survival skills,
but we can rest assured that his choice will be an expert at mishandling
the public's trust.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i'm betting it'll be when he tries to run for the 5th time....someone might figure it out.
You have a point but I have to wonder if he will be here for a 3rd term? If Republicans still run Congress after the next election I would say thats a big yes.

[zimv20]

a third term is constitutionally disallowed. so that would require either an amendment or the dissolution of the constitution (however that might occur).

[atszyman]

a third term is constitutionally disallowed. so that would require either an amendment or the dissolution of the constitution (however that might occur).

However a term only ends when there is an election... if they find a way to postpone the election, technically his second term doesn't end.

[Queso]

If whoever succeeds Bush does not immediately start tearing down the damage he has done to the USA I can see some states trying to secede within a decade.

Map of the USA 2030

http://www.irregulartimes.com/secedeamerica.jpg

[atszyman]

a third term is constitutionally disallowed. so that would require either an amendment or the dissolution of the constitution (however that might occur).

That would be an interesting maneuver. Of course it would lead to a very interesting election....

George Bush(II) vs Bill Clinton

I'd have to imagine that Bush(II) has screwed things up to the point where no non-obvious vote tampering could end up with Bush(II) winning. It would also be a historic even when both the Father and Son incumbent president were beaten by the same guy.

[zimv20]

It would also be a historic even when both the Father and Son incumbent president were beaten by the same guy.
that would be almost as amazing as tony dungy being the only NFL player to have thrown and caught an interception in the same game. :-)

[mactastic]

Obviously Bush wants to appoint someone to continue his agenda of corruption, deception and waste.
That's part of it, but a larger part is a desire to create the conservative self-fulfilling prophecy that says government can't do things better than private enterprise. So they sabotage government, trying to cripple it such that their stated goal of "drowning it in a bathtub" may come to pass.

When you put people in charge of government who profess to hate government, what do you expect?

[Dont Hurt Me]

a third term is constitutionally disallowed. so that would require either an amendment or the dissolution of the constitution (however that might occur).So was torture, or Spying on Americans, or Kidnapping folks and sending them to secret CIA prisons, I could go on and on about how this president has broken many of our own laws but my point was with a republican congress and a war he could be around for a 3rd term, He could use his war on terror, Or the War he started with Iraq, or a war with North Korea or Iran. With republicans running Congress this president can do ANYTHING he wants. Thats a fact and he's allready proven it.

[freeny]

This comes as no surprise. Thats the sad part.