Cheney Law on Frontline.

[techs]

I don't know if this was the first showing on PBS last night. But if you saw it you would be very, very, very, very, very afraid.

Let me summarize Dicks view of the Presidency BEFORE 9-11:

The President can do anything he wants. Congress has no say in anything.
If Congress did make a law that affects the President in any way, shape or form it is unconstitutional.
The President does not have to obey any laws. The President does not even have to follow the Constitution.
The President doesn't have to abide by any Supreme Court decisions.

Here's an example:
Before Gulf War 1 Cheney strongly urged Bush Sr. not to ask Congress for authority to act in Kuwait. And Cheney said that even Congress says no, the President can do it anyway.
Cheney believes there is no law that Congress can make that affects the President in any way.


Cheneys reasoning, as stated by many of the people who worked for him, is that each branch of government is separate. Therefore no other branch can affect what the President does or cannot do.

Cheneys minions go into some detail. The President can attack any country at will. Even if Congress forbids it. The President can use any money allocated by Congress for any reason, in any way he sees fit. For example he can take money Congress votes for bridges and build an amusement park in his backyard. Legal and Constitutional.

The President does not have to give any information to Congress, the Supreme Court, or the public. The ENTIRE executive branch does not have to give any information to Congress, the Supreme Court or the public.
All the powers Cheney says the President has, also extend to every employee of the United States.

And Cheney and Bush put people on the Supreme Court WHO AGREE WITH THIS.



So basically if Hilary wants universal health care, under Cheneys reasoning, she can just take the money out of the military budget (since Congress has no say in how the money is spent by the Executive, they merely give the Executive some amount that the President can spend as he likes). Yes, Hilary could even order the military to go into every home in America and drag you to Universal Health Care clinic. Seems Posse Comitatus is just a law passed by Congress and therefore does not affect the President.

I don't know about anyone else, but this is not the America I knew. Apparently when Bush said the Constitution is just a d*mn piece of paper, he really, really meant it.

 

[Lemon law]

I saw the same thing and agree with you on the be very afraid.

But I have a slightly different take on it. Cheney started out under Nixon and saw Nixon taken down and Presidential power with it. It was only after Cheney met very smart lawyers who could put a flashy and flimsy facades of legitimacy that the doctrine became very dangerous.

1. The doctrine of a unitary executive with dictatorial powers can be sold to various people but can't withstand serious court scrutiny. So at all costs, keep things out of courts.

2. There are certain must have positions. A rubber stamp congress is desirable, but one must have the Department of Justice and its office of Legal Counsel. Not only can the AG prevent the Prosecution of crime, but they can legitimize crime as well.

3. When caught by either congress or the courts, make a show out of graceful surrender, and then repair the damage by either gutting what ever you can or with a signing statement which basically says I agreed to it but I had my fingers crossed.

Now that congress has switched parties and the struggle is more about preserving the constitution, I and I must say many others wonder why congress takes this crap from GWB&co. The doctrine of a unitary executive can sound attractive but its totally mutually exclusive with our constitution. So force our courts to examine and rule on these things would seem to be job one. Job two would seem to be enforcing congressional subpoena power against claims of executive privilege already decided during the Nixon administration. And congress simply has not done much on job one or two. And it would seem to me that job three would be to get court rulings that plainly state signing statements have no legal standing at all.

Our congress is either gutless or maybe we should examine an alternative. Maybe they fear that if they push GWB&Cheney to the impeachment or court wall, that GWB&Cheney will simply set them selves up as dictators. Maybe that threat has been privately relayed already. In which case it may be a wiser course to wait until after the end of their term to force the issues into court and FINALLY KILL THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE.

But after I viewed this, I am edging towards the moonbeam camp that says impeach GWB&Cheney now. Force the issues into the open, they cannot withstand the light of day.

 

[Craig234]

I saw most of the show, and like usual, the Frontline episode was excellent. To qualify what you're saying, they claim the president has the right to do all those things 'in war', but obviously since they say he has the rights now, it need not be a declared war by Congress.

That is how the law is subverted - ultimately the constitution is just a piece of paper in the National Archives, and it's only as powerful as the people who choose to follow it. By interpreting it differently, it can mean just about anything, as they're showing.

People wonder why I and others ring alarm bells against the Federalist Society trying to stack our court systems and such. The pressures for a society more of an oligarchy are always there, the question is whether we let them get away with things.

One thing the documentary really highlighted was how the Justice Department under the hated John Ashcroft was actually something of a defender of the constitution against the unconstitutional move to an imperial presidency by Bush-Cheney. There's a limit to the credit they deserve but they did some remarkable things considering they're appointed by the President, and already 'on his side' politically.

On signing statements: I think it's time to say for the record that they have zero legal weight.

They're simply the president making a statement like any other time he speaks. They do not carry the weight of law. They are not part of the law he signs. If he states an intent to not follow the law, it's the same whether in a signing statement or in a speech.

Recommended: watch the show free here

 

[NoStateofMind]

Any links? I don't doubt this is true, but many are going to want more proof. So I guess an impeachment means nothing? How about term limits? Questions we must ask.....

EDIT: What was the name of this Frontline episode?


EDIT: nvm found it

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Any links? I don't doubt this is true, but many are going to want more proof. So I guess an impeachment means nothing? How about term limits? Questions we must ask.....

EDIT: What was the name of this Frontline episode?

It's linked in my post above yours.

 

[blackangst1]

Shens. It sounds like an SNL skit to me. He knows better.

Even if, in a momentary lapse of reason he said this, it doesnt make it so. No president in history has had this kind of power, and I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

Im not defending him, I just think its shens.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Cheney's Law

And these lunches with Cheney and Bush with the doors shut -- you know, historians are going to pull their hair out over this because almost entire strategies of the government were conducted in these little rooms with no transcripts, with no one there except the president and the vice president. That's how tight the circle becomes in the Dick Cheney White House that George Bush lives in.

"There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?"

As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.

 

[blackangst1]

Do any of you honestly think this could come to fruition? Hatred for the right aside, I mean really? As much as I dislike Pelosi, if she said it I would roll my eyes and mumble "Good luck with that".

 

[StageLeft]

Surprisingly I actually watched about 30 min of this.

Is it real and true? I mean, they had some heavy hitters no the program and I've heard rumors of Cheney being a puppeteer, but how much of this is valid?

Anyway, we do know the pres can do whatever he wants--he can and will torture, just change the definition of it if there is a problem, he can fund his war through emergeny appropriations requests, too.

Do any of you honestly think this could come to fruition?

What specifically come to fruition?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Surprisingly I actually watched about 30 min of this.

Is it real and true? I mean, they had some heavy hitters no the program and I've heard rumors of Cheney being a puppeteer, but how much of this is valid?

Anyway, we do know the pres can do whatever he wants--he can and will torture, just change the definition of it if there is a problem, he can fund his war through emergeny appropriations requests, too.

Four days after the Congress Anti-Torture Bill was signed a signing statement, most likely written by Addington, was submitted by Bush.

Bush could bypass new torture ban

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Do any of you honestly think this could come to fruition? Hatred for the right aside, I mean really? As much as I dislike Pelosi, if she said it I would roll my eyes and mumble "Good luck with that".

Aside from the fact I have no idea of what you mean by this, I find the blackaignst1 answer morally bankrupt. Here we are talking about the principles of our own constitution with a good chance 200 plus years will go down the toilet, and all blackaignst1 can do is talk about semi involved PERSONALITY like Pelosi who has a key role to play in defending our constitution by virtue of her position.

Which boils down to any crime is permitted if I just personally like the crook. And double GOD yes the crimes OK if I like the crook and dislike the prosecutor.

What happened to Principle and the truth in blackaignstville?

 

[RaiderJ]

Cheney & Bush both scare me. To see what they have been able to get away with these last 7 years.... I guess this is why they have term limits!

 

[Lemon law]

I agree, 1/20/2009 is the end of term limit for GWB&co. The end of the line unless they try a military coup.

But if the people want to find out the proof about where the bodies are all buried on these unitary President doctrines, the place to start is in pressuring the yet to be confirmed new AG in Mukasey. That is a key must have place to have someone that will uphold the law and ferret out the mis deeds of Gonzales.

 

[StageLeft]

Yeah, I said in another thread the pres cannot do entirely anything he wants, but heck Bush does come close, doesn't he?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: techs
Bush said the Constitution is just a d*mn piece of paper

rofl, libs are still spreading this lie around :laugh:

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Cheney & Bush both scare me. To see what they have been able to get away with these last 7 years.... I guess this is why they have term limits!

You ain't seen nothing yet! IMHO anyway.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: techs
Bush said the Constitution is just a d*mn piece of paper

rofl, libs are still spreading this lie around :laugh:

Most of them know its a lie, but they still repeat it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Cheney & Bush both scare me. To see what they have been able to get away with these last 7 years.... I guess this is why they have term limits!

Cheney and Bush don't scare me. They remind me of spoiled little boys acting out and rebelling against parental neglect by searching for limits as outrageously and aggressively as they can. What frightens me are the enabling parents who are too intimidated by and afraid of their dear little psychos to reign them in.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Do any of you honestly think this could come to fruition? Hatred for the right aside, I mean really? As much as I dislike Pelosi, if she said it I would roll my eyes and mumble "Good luck with that".

If by this comment you mean, "Do you think that an actual unitary Presidency will occur?," then the proper response is: Bush et al ACT as though there is a unitary Presidency - that's what's important. Torture, wiretaps, renditions/black prisons, the obsessive secrecy about their actions, the signing statements - these are all a product of their "theory."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: techs
Bush said the Constitution is just a d*mn piece of paper

rofl, libs are still spreading this lie around :laugh:

Most of them know its a lie, but they still repeat it.

The Bush crowd also keep repeating the outrageous lie, "We either fight them there [meaning Iraq], or we fight them here."

I keep wondering who the "them" are they're referring to. Are they claiming that our adversaries in Iraq are international terrorists? Do they dispute the fact that terrorist acts in Iraq committed by AQI (Al Qaida in Iraq - a home-grown terrorist group that has NEVER engaged in international terrorism and which really has no connection to the real Al Qaida hiding in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan) represent no more than 15% of the total (and shrinking fast)?

 

[CPA]

And the first three posters get on ProfJohn about his threads........

 

[Kadarin]

How likely would you all guess that they would try some sort of coup?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Shens. It sounds like an SNL skit to me. He knows better.

Even if, in a momentary lapse of reason he said this, it doesnt make it so. No president in history has had this kind of power, and I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

Im not defending him, I just think its shens.

Not within our lifetime? Give them more taxes/power (same thing) and I suggest it will. Bush and Dick however, will not act out in such a manner - their throne of centralized dictation is too small. We need to elect those who will build it better prior to such fears materializing into action.

We need to elect Dems to build this better throne for our future emperor, and we will. I won?t, but the country will. Handouts for an emperor is a fair trade, no? They will feed us and we will bleat like the happy fat sheep we are.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Cheney & Bush both scare me. To see what they have been able to get away with these last 7 years.... I guess this is why they have term limits!

Cheney and Bush don't scare me. They remind me of spoiled little boys acting out and rebelling against parental neglect by searching for limits as outrageously and aggressively as they can. What frightens me are the enabling parents who are too intimidated by and afraid of their dear little psychos to reign them in.

To a great extent I agree with Moonbeam and that analogy of spoiled brats. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REINED IN BEFORE 911.

Now they are so mired in law breaking, that even if GWB&co. got the minimum sentence possible in the Federal sentencing laws, neither GWB or Cheney would get out of jail before
1/20/3009. The point is we failed to prosecute early and now GWB and Cheney are beyond any redemption. The Poison they gleefully swallow is fatally addicting kool aid. Now they in it way over their head.

And now we are to come as a dutch uncle as try to redeem our cuddly children? The point is
that GWB&co. long ago stole the famdamily gun collection, they are no longer soft and cuddly anymore, and they are wither gonna laugh at the dutch uncle act or just blow the dutch uncle away.

Do any seriously think that anyone who would cheerfully torture people gives a shit about
human rights or the rule of Law?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: techs
Bush said the Constitution is just a d*mn piece of paper

rofl, libs are still spreading this lie around :laugh:

http://www.theconservativevoic...forum/read.html?id=552

During that same meeting, Thompson quotes an aide as telling Mr. Bush, "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law [the Patriot Act] undermine the Constitution." Thompson quotes the President as screaming back, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g-d- piece of paper!"