Friday, October 06, 2006

It's Friday.. Yayyyy!!.. Politics.. Funny Daily Show Clip..Pictures From The Web..Music

A few observations..
You still think we don't live under a unitary executive?



We do, he does not really care for the Congress. He just uses "signing statements" to interpret any bill/law the Congress passes as he sees fit. That is called a dictatorship in some parts of the world. Link here


By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 5, 4:06 PM

President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the
Homeland Security

Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

This Is My Job! (Daily Show Jon Stewart.. Hilarious)




Moral Values Voters?

Morning Edition, October 5, 2006 · The scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) contact with congressional pages seems to strike at the heart of the Republican campaign on moral values. But the case does not appear to be having an effect on a small group of voters contacted by NPR who consider morality an important political issue.

Link here

Why am I not surprised? I heard this as I was driving in. So these so called “moral Values” voters see nothing wrong with the GOP trying to cover up the Mark Foley case? They will still vote for the GOP. These folks are the 25-30% and constitute the true GOP base. I also hate how they are referred to as values voters. As if the rest of us don’t have any or don’t take them in to account when we vote.

Ray Charles & The Count Basie Orchestra



Apparently the two greats never recorded together. But thanks to the ability to digitally hybridize music, you can hear them now. Link on NPR here. There is also a link to "'Let the Good Times Roll' " which I liked. One worries about the results of hybridized music like this, but I loved it. The NPR link also explains the whole process pretty well.

Pictures From The Web

Wedding Picture



Floating Babies



Eowwwww!



29 comments:

Aditi said...

First!!
I am really interested in seeing what worms come out of the can if the leadership changes in the upcoming election.
Why are those babies floating?
And For the last picture i will look at the semi brighter side of the animal being flung by the rhino instead of landing on the horn.
=)

Keshi said...

HAHAHA @wedding pic!

Keshi.

Sanjay said...

@Aditi... Please do vote come Nov ;).
Dunno why the babies are floating, must be the whole getting toddlers comfy with water?
The animal was ok, there was another picture.

@keshi. :) Thanks

Maggie said...

Once again an awesome post. Your point about so-called "values" voters is so true. Apparently I have no values when I take hours reading and studying each candidate I vote for to be sure that they subscribe to the ideals I believe my government should be promoting. Apparently I have no values when I raise my children to believe that pedophiles are bad. Hmph.
John Stewart rocks my world. Maybe Bush should spend less time focusing on defining his job and taking vacations and more time actually doing his job. The right way.

Sanjay said...

@maggie.. Thanks. Ya I dislike the main stream media for making it look like we don;t have values cos we are not faith based. I mean WTF.

As for the shrub, it's clear he can't do anything right. I wish the Congress had the guts to impeach him. Well he will be gone by 2008 after doing possibly irreversible harm to my country!

Nancy Willing said...

Heyo,
that Bush signing statement should be the news on the headlines today.

imperial presidency means no democracy .... un-f'ing-real

you have a first!!!

Sai said...

Well the so called values voters were appalled at Bill Clinton's indiscretion but absolutely are OK with innocent lives being killed in Iraq. Talking of misplaced values! Apparently for them what someone does in his personal life is more important than what someone is doing to destroy democracy.

Sanjay said...

imperial presidency means no democracy .... un-f'ing-real

True.. tell that to the sheeple running scared and wanting security or an illusion of it all costs.

@Sai.. IOKIYAR.. -> It's Ok If You Are Republican!

Jordan's Dad said...

Hey Jay! Long time! Here I thought you had abandoned politics in favor of recipes and weird sex talk. Nice to see you're still fighting the fight.

According to "Nancy" you "have a first" here regarding the signing statements...

Well... not exactly...

An ABA report criticizing Bush on this issue was widely reported in July. (I'd suggest a google search)

Also reported then was a group of lawyers, including a former solicitor general for the Clinton administration, which stated:

"There is a long history of Presidents concluding that, in certain limited circumstances, it is more consistent with their constitutional obligations to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law than to enforce it."

It also concludes that:

"The signing statement is a good thing: a manifestation of the Executive’s intentions that helps us to understand the heart of the problem. If the President has decided to decline to enforce a statute because it’s unconstitutional (see above) then it is much better that he tell the Congress and the public of his intentions, rather than keep it secret, because in that case the checks and balances of the constitutional system can be set to work."

So you have it exactly wrong, as usual.

1. Signing statements have been used well before Bush ever came to office.

2. Rather than proof of a dictatorship, they are the opposite - a useful tool to set the system of checks and balances into motion. I mean, he could just veto the law instead of signing it, right?

3. Stick to the Foley thing. You guys got a better shot with that. Constitutional issues arent really your "bag," man...

JD

P.S. For those of your readers even less informed than Nancy (if that's possible), the "unitary executive" is actually spelled out in our Constitution, which states in Article I:

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"

Have a nice day.

Jordan's Dad said...

Make that "Article II, Section 1."

JD

Sai said...

Sanjay:

"@Sai.. IOKIYAR.. -> It's Ok If You Are Republican!"

I am not certain if you commented about me or the values voter. If it was addressed to me then, I am not an American citizen and most certainly do not subscribe to right-wing ideologies.

My comment was more an observation about the "values voters."

Sanjay said...

@Sai.. The comment was not about you. IOKIYAR is an acronym often used to describe republican hypocrisy. Sorry I should have been more clear about it.

Sanjay said...

JD..JD.. more blah and blah.

Wierd sex talk? oh my so puritanical.

Not surprised at all at that. Who is asking you to read? You were not missed. Or don't you get a hint? Typical detached from reality Bush worshipper that you are.. Well it's spelt out for you now ok? Oh and don't let the door hit ya on the way out ok?

My response is below. I am not wasting time with fact free people like you any more than I have to.

As for the signing statements. I know about the ABA report. I also know that this is not the first instance of them being used. I did not say that and your comments are presumably directed at one of the folsk who commented.

Checks and balances? ya right. We know how that has been going right?
Maybe he should veto, your party has both houses what are you so afraid of eh?

The unitary executive status isinterpreted differently by diff ppl, just cos you say so it ain't right.

As for constitutional issues. That is my interpretation of how he is using his powers. You disagree and so what's new?

BTW here is the report. Don't pick and choose. There is nothing in the conclusion that says anything supportive about how dear leader uses them..
It actually is asking for more accountability from dear leader. Gee I wonder why.

And you are a lawyer? Try to live up to whatever your degree is all about. Don't pick and choose. conclusions are below for you and so is the recommendation

IV. CONCLUSION
Professor Kinkopf concludes that the use, frequency, and nature of the President’s signing
statements demonstrates a “radically expansive view” of executive power which “amounts to a
claim that he is impervious to the laws that Congress enacts” and represents a serious assault on
the constitutional system of checks and balances.
We emphasize once again that our concerns are not addressed solely to the current
President, and we do not question his good faith belief in his use of signing statements. However,
the importance of respect for the doctrine of separation of powers cannot be overstated.
The Supreme Court has reminded us that it was the “the central judgment of the Framers
of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into
three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty.”

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
TASK FORCE ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS
AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE
RECOMMENDATION
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of 1 law
2 and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing
3 statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or
4 part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the
clear intent of Congress; 56
7 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President, if he
8 believes that any provision of a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted,
9 to communicate such concerns to Congress prior to passage;
10
11 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President to
12 confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose and significance of
13 bills presented by Congress, and if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, to veto
14 the bill in accordance with Article I, § 7 of the Constitution of the United States, which directs
15 him to approve or disapprove each bill in its entirety;
16
17 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact
18 legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing
19 statements he issues, and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention,
20 to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a
21 manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth
22 in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement; and further requiring that all such submissions
23 be available in a publicly accessible database; and
24
25 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact
26 legislation enabling the President, Congress, or other entities or individuals, to seek judicial
27 review, to the extent constitutionally permissible, in any instance in which the President claims the
28 authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has
29 signed, or interprets such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and
30 urges Congress and the President to support a judicial resolution of the President's claim

The Dummy said...

Whoah, those floating babies are weird! Loved the Jon Stewart link. And suddenly, things are in better perspective when I realize I'm not getting my butt kicked by a rhino!

Maggie said...

I'd like to chime in here just quickly. JD mentioned that other Presidents have used the signing statement as a way to "refuse to enforce an unconstitional law". I find it interesting that the President felt compelled to make sooo many signing statements on laws passed by a majority republican party. Was his party not being responsible this many times? Is this not a conundrum that a party liner (as JD seems to be) would have to question? Who is more right? His republican President or his Republican congress? And why does the President get to pick and choose also? Signing statements of themselves seem like a decent tool, used properly. But even a hammer can be used to harm people, tools need to be used correctly by the user.

Sanjay said...

@Maggie.. You make several good points. JD is a true believer. He is the 25-30% of the GOP base who no matter what will vote for dear leader.

Intern said...

I saw the daily Show ... Good as always ... and you're really quick with postinging it today.

There's another excellent show ... Real Time with Bill Maher ... On Fridays on HBO? Do you see it. he is my fav comedian-talk show host! If you dont, just try it once ... its very contemporary and very interesting.

Jordan's Dad said...

The quotes I used were not from the ABA Report (you'd know this if you actually read my comment). It was from a report responding to the ABA report which included Clinton's former solicitor general.

Anyway...

"Checks and balances? ya right. We know how that has been going right?"

That's really a stellar argument, Jay. Lets say I don't "know how that has been going" - why dont you explain it to me? "Ya right" isnt exactly an argument.

"Maybe he should veto, your party has both houses what are you so afraid of eh?"

Wouldnt that be MORE like a dictatorship if he vetoed every law he thought unconstitutional? That would impose a supermajority requirement on congress instead of simply allowing the supreme court to test the law as passed by congress. A veto seems like more of a power grab to me (even though its legitimately within his power to do so), no?

In regard to your unitary executive "argument," I dont know how much more clear you can get than a sentence quoted directly from the constitution. Do you see room for interpretation in there?

Jay, you really dont even have any idea what you're arguing about. But neither do most libs. Really sad.

Now, Maggie here actually makes some sense. Sure, there is plenty of room for arguing how Bush has USED the signing statements. But the signing statements in and of themselves are not any sort of novel dictatorial tool.

One could argue, Maggie, that Bush disagreeing with the Republican congress shows that he is not adhereing to the "party line." That could be a good thing I suppose. Each such signing statement should be viewed in context with the law it adresses - not in a vacuum.

Certainly, in these times, Congress is passing a lot of new laws to respond to terrorist threats. This presents a lot of opportunity to delve into areas in which the constitionality of the proposed actions are fuzzy. So there is bound to be conflict between the branches of government when those laws speak to their respective constituional powers. And the supreme court will eventually resolve that conflict.

That's how our system works. Not so bad, right?

Bye for now!

Shitrint said...

whoops!
that mustve been painful...the last pic!
:)

Shitrint said...

hey, how do u arrange to get those number of posts in the brackets per month ?
like u hav "september (27)" posts...?
er...do u know how to make use of RSS feeds so ill come to know if anyone has updated their blog?
:)

Cacophoenix said...

There was a comment on that Youtube on the website which said "Thank God Bush doesn't do any real job"
It is such an irony that the Foley gets punished by the same laws he framed punish paedophiles and child sex offenders. And it is nothing but blind stupidity and the reluctance to come out of their cocoons that makes these people the so called "value voters"

starry nights said...

I love to watch John Stewart and saw that episode. thought it was really great.I am proud to call myself a democrat, atleast we dont talk about being morally upright and then do the stuff that foley did. BTW I liked the wedding pic.

priya said...

I never miss his shows and enjoy watching it. You jsut bring some interesting pictures and wonder what those babies r floating for??

Jordan's Dad said...

"I am proud to call myself a democrat, at least we dont talk about being morally upright and then do the stuff that foley did."

I love it!!

You're exactly right Starry Nights! If you have no moral values, then you can NEVER be in breach of them.

Those brilliant Dems!!

Anonymous said...

I can help laughing at Jordan Dad's response to Starry nights....when I say laughing, it is not with JD but at JD!

Sanjay said...

JD is a true believer. I suspect he will give up everything for his party. Remember party not country.

Sanjay said...

If you have no moral values, then you can NEVER be in breach of them.

She did not say that, typical GOP pick n choose and projection.
You are clearly making yourself out to be an idiot here. Go play with your own kind ;)
She said "I am proud to call myself a democrat, atleast we dont talk about being morally upright and then do the stuff that foley did"

Remember you don't have to be talking all the time about being morals like the GOP does to live a life like along those lines. You live it, which is what Starry seems to be saying. But then you would not know that.

ishita said...

hi:)...been a long time since i got here....missed gettin here to see the cute and funny pics and of course the yummyyy recipes:))...feels good to be back and i guess sunday will be spent just reading thru allllll the posts i've missed this past week n more!....!

more laterzz....have a fun sunday!:)

Paulomee said...

loved the daily show clip... john steward and steve colbert are hilarous. i love the "word" thing that steve colbert does.
secondly, loved how for some time mark foley was blamming his advances and molestation of his interns on his alcoholism, just like mel gibson blammed hating jews on his alcoholism.
i love how some people can just hide behind a "problem" and expect it all to go away. it really does give alcoholics a bad name.
thirdly, i was highly concerned about the floating babies.. the first thought was arent they choking on air tube???
haha... sorry for the extremely long comment