Re: Why Many Hope For Obama Victory

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:49:34 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<findme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"Lubow" <lubow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
>
>> We have 535 members of congress to represent us.
>
>Which is why, until the corruption in politics is ended, the US needs no
>president except for the purpose of further misleading the people.
>
>> The president does not represent any one area or any one group.
>
>Hogwash.  That's like saying Bush doesn't work for the Oil, drug and
>motorcar companies, or the World Bank.
>
>> The president represents the United
>> States and executes  the laws passed by the people's representatives in
>> congress.  If that bothers you consider a petition campaign to change
our
>> constitution.
>
>More hogwash....   the 'pres' does as he damned well pleases, given that
it's
>within the parameters issued to him by the International Bankers.
>
>
>
>The Presidential  "Signing Statement"  dictator****p...

So now "Signing Statement(s)" equal "dictator****p"? ROTFLMHO

How odd that no such thing was claimed about "signing statements"
when Bill Clinton was in office:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

"...sup****t of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard
Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the
Democrats still had Congressional majorities).  Nussbaum stated that
the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the
Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly
unconstitutional law." 

A copy of Nussbaum's memo may be seen at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

"Q:  Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing
statements than any other president?

A:  No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements..."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

Bottom line:
"Presidential signing statements are a non-issue. Critics 
have launched a massive fi****ng expedition, but they have 
caught only the reddest of red herrings."
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/signing.html

This was always "a non-issue"...until G.W. Bush was re-elected
2004...the leftist-liberals then "launched a massive fi****ng
expedition" and "caught only the reddest of red herrings."

>And over one million more....
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Bush%2C+signing+statements&btnG=Google+Search

Really..."over one million MORE" what...articles?  ROTFLMHO

In a clarification issued May 4, 2006...note(d) that Bush had not
really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing
statements), but 'has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750
statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.'" 
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q1