Just wondering.
When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act
this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey
requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's
expanded police powers.
...In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound
to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite
the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that
disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative
process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional
duties."
Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions .
. . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive
branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional
authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information
. . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile
instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a
law.
After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had
authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans'
international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by
law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant
law.
And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any
detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement
declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation
techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Thank God we have a President who is willing to bypass the LEGISLATIVE branch of government and do whatever the hell he wants. Where are all those people who were screaming about "activist" judges now?
