Signing Statements b/w The Unitary Executive
Fatback
6,746 Posts
Signing Statements[/b] are, in effect, line item vetoes. These are unconstitutional. But George W. Bush has done more than 700 of them.Is anybody suing him? Should they? Can they? Legal Strutters step up.Unitary Executive[/b] "the Constitutional Convention debates show that the Founders' primary concern behind whether to have a single executive or an executive council was to choose the one that would ensure that the executive would be relatively weaker and more easily restrained by the legislature; that those who argued for a unitary executive advanced the argument because they considered that the best way to limit the executive???s power and keep it subordinate to the legislature, in opposition to arguments that a plural executive would support the executive???s independence; and the term "unitary executive" was thereby bound up with the intention of keeping executive power checked and restrained."Above is from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_theoryGood story on this:http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=fullHere's one. I ain't no lawyer, but this reads like "I'll do whatever the fuck I want, bitches."http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.htmlBonus cut:The MOST ACTIVIST JUDGE EVAR! 
Comments
USA Today: NSA building massive database of phone records[/b]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has been secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls in an effort to build a database of every call made within the country, it was reported Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.
The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval.
"The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks," said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.
On Capitol Hill, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel "to find out exactly what is going on."
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the panel, sounded incredulous about the program and railed against what he called a lack of congressional oversight. He argued that the media was doing the job of Congress.
"Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?" Leahy asked. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything ... Where does it stop?"
The Democrat, who at one point held up a copy of the newspaper, added: "Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents."
The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.
The NSA and the Office of National Intelligence Director did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
NSA is the same spy agency that conducts the controversial domestic eavesdropping program that has been acknowledged by President Bush. The president said last year that he authorized the NSA to listen, without warrants, to international phone calls involving Americans suspected of terrorist links.
Hayden's Capitol Hill visits canceled
The report came as the former NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden -- Bush's choice to take over leadership of the CIA -- had been scheduled to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. However, the meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were postponed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.
The White House offered no reason for the postponement to the lawmakers.
Hayden already faced criticism because of the NSA's secret domestic eavesdropping program. As head of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005, Hayden also would have overseen the call-tracking program.
The NSA wants the database of domestic call records to look for any patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, USA Today said.
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, told the paper that the agency operates within the law, but would not comment further on its operations.
One big telecommunications company, Qwest, has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns.
Inquiry into eavesdropping killed
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the NSA refused to grant its lawyers the necessary security clearance. (Full story)
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."
Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules. He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
damn. figured you would. i even searched the site before I posted this, but it did't come up for some reason.
btw--why do I have to wait after doing a search before I can do another on here?that's annoying.
Are you really suprised by this? Anyone can pay to get anyone elses phone records. If I had your number, I could probably pay an online company and find out who your calling (Or who's calling you) and for how long your talking to them, etc...
I am not surprised, I am appalled.
I agree that big brother is here, and big brother is big business.
I think that it is important to keep goverment out of the big brother business.
I wish we could get big business out of the big brother business.