Regarding Bush’s signing statements, I thought they had a similarity to Clinton’s line item veto. I know Clinton’s purpose was to get around the poison pill aspect of congress stuffing pork or highly questionable provisions into basically essential bills, but at its core a line item veto is a president saying some part of a law is unacceptable and won’t be enforced by the executive branch - the only branch with enforcement abilities. The “veto” aspect may allow for a congressional over ride but that’s a secondary point.

The Supreme Court quickly killed Clinton’s line item veto and that in it self suggests how things are different if a Republican is claiming special powers. My impression was that in the past when some court case came up with great significance to the nation that case was given a fast track to the Supreme Court. In contrast with the Bush presidency cases challenging fundamentals like habeas corpus, government surveillance, search and seizure, etc., not only aren’t fast tracked, they’re “slow” tracked. The cases work their ways through the levels of courts and if they should eventually reach the Supreme Court, the court seems to often find some minor point to use as a basis to send it back to the lower courts.

My impression of this change in court approach is that this Supreme Court is loathe to challenge Bush and restrict his power grabs but even more loathe to rule in a way that makes itself irrelevant - rule that they no longer can rule on a matter. The court thereby effectively gives Bush almost all the power he wants, only slightly redirecting him on occasion, yet it leaves itself open to kill all those powers for the next chief executive.

As Bush has pointed out with reference to Social Security bonds and their paper base, the constitution is just a piece of paper. If the police are criminals, the noblest of laws don’t mean a thing.

Look at the recent hearings for a new “top cop” of the Department of “Justice.” The proposed “top cop” is absolutely certain that the government does not “torture,” but he can’t comment on the specifics because he hasn’t seen and does not know the actual methods involved. He guarantees “torture” does not match the infinite possibilities of a complete unknown. That seems like a mathematical definition of meaningless.

America’s congress is considering passage of a law legalizing any crimes that may have been committed by telecom companies the last few years, even though the people demanding the retroactive legalization resolutely claim no crimes were committed. Kafka must be ROTFL in his grave.

Is it the fact that your president doesn’t even attempt to get a bill passed to bypass the constitution (like FISA and the Fed)? I don’t see the difference in what method you use. Could you explain why the method of bypassing the constitution is important, rather than the fact that it *is* being bypassed?

Just as a side-note, many governments have instituted some sort of fiscal responsability laws like having a balanced budget. This seems to come up in the news every now and then. How much do you think this would have helped in these checks and balances as to what Bush would be allowed to do (though war is usually an excuse to bypass laws), and what risk do you see this having on keeping the military power of the US? These are more rhetorical than anything. I think there is a reason that all funding bills are passed.

Again, apologies for the intrusion. These topics do have relevance where I’m from as well, so I’m interested to see where these kinds of conversations go.