Originally Posted By plpeters70 From Reuters: Republicans uphold Bush veto of anti-torture bill <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11636309" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article /latestCrisis/idUSN11636309</a> "U.S. President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress on Tuesday upheld his veto of a bill to ban the CIA from subjecting enemy detainees to interrogation methods denounced by critics as torture. A largely party-line vote of 225-188 in the Democratic-led House of Representatives fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to override the president" Personally, I find this whole thing to be sick -- and I can't believe the media hasn't been more on top of this. Here we are, the most powerful country in the world, and we allow our elected officials to veto laws that would make it illegal for the CIA to torture people. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?
Originally Posted By johnno52 This "VETO" power by the President that can stop a bill passed by a democratically elected Senate is about as close as a dictatorship as you can get! 413 senate votes are not as powerful as 1 from the White house. Yes and I'm sure I will be told that he is elected also. So much for democracy for the people by the people, isn't that how it goes? Its legal by the US Military and the CIA to commit war crimes against humanity as long its for the preservation of puppet regimes and multi national corporations.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So much for democracy for the people by the people, isn't that how it goes?" No. There are three branches of our federal government. They are coequal and each has their checks and balances against the others. For a law to become or remain a law, all three must agree to the law. If one of the equal branches does not, then it no longer remains a law.
Originally Posted By johnno52 Thanks Jon but doesn't it remains that "one man rules the roost" if its not a 2/3 majority vote?
Originally Posted By jonvn No. It means that one branch of the government does not agree to the law. Even if the congress and the administration both want a law, the courts have to agree to it as well. So, if you have a law that the courts say no to, you can get a judge someplace, on his own, to say the law is invalid. That can get appealed and goes to the Supreme Court, which rules on whether laws are valid and proper. Aside from that, the President is not supposed to simply make law on his own. He can't just say "this is now a law." He has to get it approved by congress, and if they don't want to go along with it, it doesn't happen.
Originally Posted By Mr X Where exactly do those "executive order" things fit into all that, Jon? Seems like he uses them frequently to circumvent the process. Anyway, so torture is legal now (or rather, continues to be, only now with the explicit support of the executive and legislative branches). I say with a heavy heart that I'm not the least bit surprised.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "He can't just say "this is now a law." He has to get it approved by congress, and if they don't want to go along with it, it doesn't happen." And thank goodness for that!! It's just really too bad our current congress seems only to happy to let him make all the decisions - even when it means allowing people to be tortured. I really don't know how these people sleep at night...
Originally Posted By jonvn "Where exactly do those "executive order" things fit into all that, Jon?" Executive orders are supposed to be orders given to the heads of the departments over which the President has control. They can have the force of law if the congress has given him discretionary powers over certain things. Like the patriot act. They don't actually create law. Courts can overturn them, and congress can pass legislation contrary to them that stops them.
Originally Posted By dshyates Just put it on the list of things that the sane people need to repair after Yosemite Sam leaves office. Like the NSA's domestic wiretapping, the patriot act, and reinstate the rite of Habeas Corpus.
Originally Posted By woody >>Seems like he uses them frequently to circumvent the process.<< Actually, he is using the process as written and defined by consistent use. Congress is acting according to it's own rules. This is the way things work.
Originally Posted By jonvn WEll, no. When an executive order is issued, it very carefully lays out what it is pursuant to. By that I mean under what legal authority the order is written under. If it is not written under the auspices of law, it's illegal, and the courts can strike it down.
Originally Posted By Mr X So is it that he hasn't done anything illegal, or that the courts are not responding?
Originally Posted By jonvn The patriot act gave him very wide lattitude to do pretty much whatever he wanted to. He likely has done nothing illegal per se. But several of the things he has done has been taken to court. I think he's lost a couple of things, but mostly he does not.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The patriot act gave him very wide lattitude to do pretty much whatever he wanted to.*** Check.
