Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law

The Boston Globe ^ | 10-06-06 | WestVirginiaRebel

[WestVirginiaRebel]

WASHINGTON-President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

What is Bush saying here? That he can go ahead and keep appointing incompetent cronies to serve under him? I'm sorry, but for all the Bush supporters out there-this is a bad move. For those who say nay, let me ask you this-what if a Democrat did this?

We did not elect a king who thinks he can ignore any silly ol' law that comes his way. Bush seems to think otherwise.

[digger48]

That darn Constitution keeps getting in the way, doesn't it?

[rocksblues]

But Bush's signing statement challenged at least three-dozen laws specified in the bill. Among those he targeted is a provision that empowers the FEMA director to tell Congress about the nation's emergency management needs without White House permission. This law, Bush said, ``purports . . . to limit supervision of an executive branch official in the provision of advice to the Congress." Despite the law, he said, the FEMA director would be required to get clearance from the White House before telling lawmakers anything.

Duh?

[plain talk]

Congress has no business micromanaging the qualifications for Executive appointees. That's my take on what's going on here. Bush needs to start passing more Executive Orders like this.

[bill1952]

The Boston Globe.

Better posted at the DU. - Is everyone brain dead here?

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Congress has no business micromanaging the qualifications for Executive apointees.

Yeah, because if there's one thing Bush knows how to do, it's hire qualified people...

[Lord_Baltar]

So you're saying when clinton did it, it was a-ok by you?

I seem to remember alot of folks around here fairly ticked off by that "stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool" nonsense.

[upchuck]

I'm afraid that sound you hear is President Bush running away from all of us conservatives.

There have been several articles (see below) here on FR about all the signing statements he has issued. A record number as I recall. This is disturbing at best.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673442/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1671545/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657068/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653490/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632130/posts

[mrsmith]

Well worth a read, quite a long statement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061004-10.html
"...Section 503(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by section 611 of the Act, provides for the appointment and certain duties of the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Section 503(c)(2) vests in the President authority to appoint the Administrator, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the President may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office. The executive branch shall construe section 503(c)(2) in a manner consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Also, section 503(c)(4) purports to regulate the provision of advice within the executive branch and to limit supervision of an executive branch official in the provision of advice to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe section 503(c)(4) in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to require the opinions of heads of departments and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Accordingly, the affected department and agency shall ensure that any reports or recommendations submitted to the Congress are subjected to appropriate executive branch review and approval before submission..."

[Cicero]

This is nonsense. If congress doesn't like an appointment, they can refuse to confirm it. But executive branch appointees are responsible to the chief executive.

As I recall, clinton appointed the Arkansas State Policeman who used to procure women for him while he was governor to be the head of FEMA. Or maybe it was Deputy Head, I'm not absolutely positive. One or the other.

[longtermmemmory]

separation of powers.

Otherwise congress would appoint their own cronies.

[FreeReign]

We did not elect a king who thinks he can ignore any silly ol' law that comes his way. Bush seems to think otherwise.

Read this;

Powers of the Presidency

Or this may be more your speed;

Executive Branch, Ben's Guide to the U.S. Government for Kids.

[infidel29]

If the authority is given to the President in the Constitution to do as he says, then congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute. The law should be found unconstitutional and thrown out.

If a democrat said the same thing I'd reply the same. I'd rather follow the words of the founding fathers than the whims of the latest bunch of jackasses to inhabit the House and Senate.

[italianquaker]

Go Dubya

[Alia]

But executive branch appointees are responsible to the chief executive.

Bingo.

[longtermmemmory]

Signing statements are similiar to attorney general opinions where there is not case law to contradict it.

They are not binding case law but they are pursuasive.

[LibLieSlayer]

The post below yours explains what this is about.

LLS

[FreedomCalls]

If the authority is given to the President in the Constitution to do as he says, then congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute. The law should be found unconstitutional and thrown out.

It's the President's responsibility not to sign unconstitutional laws just as much as it's the court's responsibility to rule them unconstitutional. If he disagrees with it, he should veto it.

[Cicero]

If he had vetoed that damned McCain Feingold bill, we wouldn't have been stuck with an unconstitutional attack on free speech.

[FreedomCalls]

I'm with you.