President bush, line-item vetos, signing statements and an over reach of power

[ToddGreenway]

it's funny how "republicans" still stick with the president even when he goes against their stance of limiting the size and power of government

of course there are true republicans out there that are against this, but the neocon socialists have managed to brainwash many people unaware of the amount of power the president claims he has over the legislative and judicial branch.

i dont see how anyone can call president bush a conservative because he certainly is not.

discuss, and i dont want any side stepping of the issue "but, but the democrats" etc. this is not a left, right issue, it is a constitutional issue

P.S. this post is meant seriously but also is an attempt to revamp the heated forums

i also find it funny how the democrats seem to go to the right of the neocons on this issue but still lack the will and courage to act on it, whether they are playing devils advocate for political reasons sounds more likely to me, otherwise it is indeed an odd paradigm shift.

[kyleh]

If it's not a left-right issue, then why is it the fault of Republicans?

Just playing devil's advocate. :)

[ToddGreenway]

its not the "fault" of the republicans, i am merely pointing out a shift in the way they have predominantly thought about the role of government.

now, when talking about the amount of power the president has been trying to accumulate over the years that is the constitutional issue, does he really have the right to use signing statements in the manner in which he is doing? are line-item vetos, which he is pushing for (as did clinton) constitutional, if im not mistaken they were already found to be unconstitutional. this debate is meant to discuss the legal powers that the president does and does not have in the constitution

[ToddGreenway]

which by the way could also be the use of warrentless wiretapping, that issue is not a done deal by any means and the legality of it remains to be seen

[zauggru]

I'm all for wire tapping to help fight terrorism, but I don't see why they need warrantless wiretapping. An invasion of privacy should be a clear cut case. Maybe the process to get a warrant takes too long. If so, they should streamline the process. A judge should still be involved to sign the warrants. Without the judge where are the checks and balances that are needed.

As for line item veto it was voted unconstitutional. I personally would like to see a line item veto.

[kinein]

There is no such thing as fighting fair vs terrorists.