Ellen: I'm really worried about Bush's third term.
Keith: But the Constitution limits presidents to two terms.
Ellen: No, the Constitution says: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."
(Yes, I'm still sore about the 2000 "election". I wasn't sure whether to label this "Satire" or "Beyond Satire". Check with me in 2006.)
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research....
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
An accompanying piece gives examples of Bush's signing statements ("official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law"):
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information "prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Editor and Publisher reports on the "'tribute' to President Bush" by "faux talk show host Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner". Some of my favorite excerpts from the article:
Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, â€œand reality has a well-known liberal bias.â€
He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. â€œThis administration is soaring, not sinking,â€ he said. â€œIf anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.â€....
Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."....
Addressing the reporters, he said, "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, heâ€™s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction."
Apparently, Bush "stopped smiling about halfway through Colbert".
Update (5/6/2006): You can view an authorized copy at Google Video.
Sources: Crooks and Liars via boingboing via Google Blogoscoped. I found the photo at http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3460/2269/320/r3282836043.jpg via Main St. USA with the caption "Pay no attention to that little man in the corner".
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Two of the women who we wanted to bring here were women whose entire families were killed by the U.S. military. As they were driving in their cars to get away from the violence, the tanks came and shot into their cars. One woman talks about her little boy on her lap and seeing the bullet go right through his forehead, her other two children killed, her husband killed, and her left in the car with the bloody bodies. We thought it was important to bring these women to meet with Cindy Sheehan, other U.S. mothers who have lost their children. And yet, when these women went to apply for their visas, they were denied. When I called the State Department to find out why, they said they had no compelling family ties left in Iraq that would ensure that they would return home, so they were at risk of staying in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: So, they were denied entry into the United States because the U.S. military had killed their families?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: They could not prove that they would want to go home. So, yes, we killed their families and then denied them the right to come to the United States to tell what the U.S. had done to their families.
The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said they'd stop providing adoptive services because a new state law prevents them from discriminating against homosexuals.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services. His quote:
"This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children. It's a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children."
Let's follow the logical consequence of restricting adult rights in favor of children's needs! I think they need to be protected from junk food, war, lying presidents... What do you think kids need? What rights are you willing to give up?
George Deutsch, the presidential appointee to NASA who tried to change NASA's website to refer to the Big Bang as a "theory", has resigned in disgrace, following blogger Scientist Activist's discovery that he had not graduated college, as he had claimed on his resume. For more, see:
- A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA (New York Times)
- NASA Public-Affairs Appointee Resigns in Disgrace (Slashdot)
My favorite Slashdot commentary:
What you people don't understand is that he could have graduated from college in theory!