It is indeed hypocritical. There is already a way for the President to say he doesn't like a law and won't follow it: it's called a veto. It's right in the Constitution.
But of course if he used that, there's always the chance Congress can override it. It takes a 2/3 majority, but it's possible.
Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill in 5 1/2 years in office. He did threaten to veto the anti-torture legislation...
I'm going to restate that, because it bears restating...
Bush was about to use his very first Presidential veto in defense of torture.
...But since using the veto is following the intent of the Framers, and might be legally overridden, Bush will just sign the bill into law (which means there's nothing for Congress to override) and just attach a "signing statement" saying "I don't care what the law says, I'm gonna do whatever I want anyway""
The junta currently running our country basically dismisses any talk of "Checks and Balances" and "Rule of Law" as "September 10th Mentality."
Can somebody tell me how that's NOT acting like a king or a dictator?
That would be nice. Is there much chance you could end up with someone worse than Bush? I can't see it myself, but my view is so limited.
Over here, west of the Atlantic, it seems that Blair has realised everyone hates him and is stepping down. We've known this for a while now - he went on TV and acted all hurt and why-doesn't-anyone-like-me (except George W, that is) - but I never really thought to mention it over here before. Frustratingly, though, he still seems to be around; I'm afraid I don't know all I should about what's going on because I haven't had much time to keep up with the news lately (it's terrible, isn't it? - I'm supposed to be an intelligent woman (ha!)).
So either way, there endeth an interesting double-act. I've got my fingers crossed for Bush LOSING, of course, so that neither of them will darken any of our metaphorical doorsteps ever again. I'm sure we'll get to hear about the US election - I am going to keep an eye on the news. I am I am I am...
The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution forbids any one person from being elected more than twice to the office of Presidency, or serving more than ten years in the position. So in 2008, neither George w. Bush nor Bill Clinton are Constitutionally eligible to become President again; they couldn't run for Vice President either, because the main Constitutional qualification for being Vice President is being Constitutionally qualified to be President.
Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush could theoretically run again, but could only serve one term.
The Ten Years part is in case some one leaves office, whether through resignation, removal, or assassination. Gerald Ford took over for Nixon in 1974--since it was before the half way mark of Nixon's second term, Ford served three years as President and could (theoretically) only serve for one more term: with two terms, he'd have been President for eleven years, more than the 10 year limit.
It wasn't that way originally--the two term limit was a custom established by George Washington, not a Constitutional law, and remained intact until Franklin Roosevelt ran for third and fourth terms. In the 50's, the Republicans who hated him got posthumus revenge by passing the 22nd Amendment.
Of course, saying Bush can't be President after January 20, 2009 assumes the Constitution is followed. The Cheney-Bush junta doesn't have the best track record at respecting the Constitution.
Oh yeah - I forgot about the 22nd Amendment. I didn't know it was the 22nd Amendment (the only Amendment I know is the 5th - I heard it on TV all the time, and one day asked a friend of mine from Pennsylvania what it was), but I was aware the law existed. I remember thinking it a sensible law when Blair was re-elected for the second time. In theory, as far as I'm aware, we could have the same PM forever.
And the People of the United States of America Strike Back!
As of the last time I checked (several hours before this posting) the mid-term election results have shown that the Democrats have won both the House of Representatives AND the Senate in a stinging nationwide rebuke of president Bush's performance (mostly on account of his administration's botched handling of the Iraq invasion).
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who is even LESS popular here than Bush has become) lost his job yesterday when it was clear that Iraq had cost the Republicans their de-facto monopoly in Washington, DC. Ironically, many pundits think that if Bush had done this weeks ago, the Republicans might have held on to at least the Senate.
instead, G W Bush insisted several days before the election that he intended to keep Rumsfeld on for the rest of his (Bush's) term.
Which makes me want to ask: "Mr. President, why did you flip-flop on this issue? Why did you 'cut-and-run' on Donald Rumsfeld?"
Yet to see if this brings about any real change for the better, though I am cautiously optimistic.
"Does not the fire need the water? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your @$$ need kicking?" --Beavis
"I couldn't hear you over the sound of me $#!77ing myself."--Uncle Ruckus The Boondocks
"Go ahead, Shake. Piss him off." Meatwad Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Who needs to keep an eye on the news? I'll just keep an eye on this board.
In class this morning, we were discussing Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which coincidentally is the thing Al and I got talking about that quickly led to the whole politics discussion on this board in the first place (if that sentence makes any sense - Fridays are long for me). So I had to re-read the book for this class, nodding my head whenever I came to the word "doublethink", which was the very word that triggered the whole discussion (must be two years ago - my memory is odd) - and then the teacher split us up into pairs to discuss it and then give feedback to the class blah blah blah. So my friend and I got talking about the mid-term elections and Bush and stuff and, thanks to being reminded by the discussion here, I was able to say, "Well, he's going now, isn't he - he's had his two terms."
My friend said, "Yeah... unless he tries to pass a law that says he can have another one."
I said, "I don't think that would work."
She said, "No, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tried."
Most of what I said was about the negative stereotypes of the working classes in the book, and the totally inaccurate representation of women - but we also got talking about why pounds and nappies have become dollars and diapers in Orwell's vision. The US of course "threw off the shackles of a despotic tyrant named George" (Fritz) when Britannia ruled the waves however many years ago (see what I mean about my memory? - it's less than two years since I studied American history) - but we highly intelligent, dynamic and promising young literature undergraduates of the UK agree that Orwell seemed to be communicating some anxiety that the UK would become Americanised. And do you know, I think in some ways it is...
(I absolutely am not saying there's anything wrong with the American variety of the English language. It's just that I like the British one too, and I'd like to keep it the way it is. Which is why I say Americanise rather than Americanize - although apparently the S replaced the Z in a very old form of British English... I digress.)