Quote:
President Bush recently signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act into law, which was passed overwhelmingly by the House, 397-27, and by the Senate, 92-3.
Unfortunately the bill was altered greatly after passage by the president.
The president used several signing statements to undermine key portions of the bill. The bill outlawed the use of taxpayer money to construct permanent bases in Iraq; Bush's statement reads the exact opposite. The bill also spelled out guidelines for the transfer of information to Congress about fraud in Iraq; Bush again used a signing statement to alter this provision completely.
|
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/0207...letters1.shtml
Quote:
|
Bush's latest signing statement declares his right to ignore sections of the law establishing a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, expanding whistleblower protections, requiring that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, banning funding for permanent bases in Iraq, and prohibiting funding of any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil revenues.
|
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=12317
I agree with a need for the executive branch, and for necessary powers during extraordinary times. But the fact that he can sign an act, but change some very key things?
The judicial branch is almost powerless. You can look at Brown vs Board of Education. Many declare this as resulting in desegregation of public schools. B vs BE was decided in 1954. Desegregation didn't immediately follow. It took the President in 1957 to enforce it by sending troops to Little Rock. Its certainly true that B vs BE paved the way, but the judicial branch lacks any enforcement capabilities.