GOA Proves Bush Broke Laws per Signing Statements


President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes.
Which paraphrased means he broke the law again.
Tags: Congress, George BushShare This
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||











Let me clarify the equation for you. First of all, under US law, the President cannot be prosecuted for any reason while in office. This not only ensures that he is free to execute his presidential duties, but prosecuting your national leader would not play well on the world stage. In order for any President (for example, Bill Clinton) to be prosecuted, they must first be impeached.
I am not saying that the President has not broken the law, but to say he should have been put in jail by now shows a lack of understanding of our judicial system as it relates to our highest office.
I also find it oddly typical of the liberal left that many who are squawking about Bush’s ‘illegalities’ are the same ones who turn a blind eye to those off members of their own party.
I am surprised at how many take the obvious bias in the liberal media and assume that they are receiving the whole story. Remember, the media is a free organization, with much leeway to print whatever they want. This is a good thing. But to take these reports as gospel truth is a naive and dangerous exercise in ignorance. …..that’s all I have to say about that.
Well, you assume that people that complain about Bush do so only because of what they learn through liberal media (as opposed to the many other sources of news out there or personal experience and thought).
Second, it’s not the media that has reported that he’s violating laws, it’s the Governement Accountability Office (a branch of the federal government).
Lastly, even if the correct steps for it are impeachment, then jail, I still wonder why he isn’t in jail right now.