# Bush: PATRIOT act restrictions don't apply to me **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 24, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750 "2006-03-24T18:25:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/21 "2006-03-25T18:52:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Do you honestly think that answers my question? It didn’t. Yes, you dislike Bush. Good for you. But I asked a serious question, and all you did was respond with a tirade. The Constitution specifically sets up the 3 branches of government to be co-equal, with different powers and different responsibilities. Show me where in the constitution that Congress is given the authority that I quesitoned. I’m not saying it isn’t there, I’m just asking if it is, and if so, where. It’s an honest question, if you care to answer it. Congress has the power to make laws. Congress has used that power to require the Executive Branch to provide information on intelligence gathering. Pretty straightforward. The implicit assumption in your “question” is that the legislature cannot restrict the president in any way in the exercise of his power, no matter how plenary that power is. Although that position seems to be the one Bush has chosen, it’s incorrect, and flies in the face of the separation of powers the founders envisioned. As one man put it “The founding fathers didn’t trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?”" ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/22 "2006-03-25T19:40:26Z")
No, John, I didn’t answer your direct question, I addressed the insulting and monumentally ignorant way you referred to Joe Congressperson as an “arbitrary member of congress.” Do try and keep up instead of jerking that knee, okay? That’s a good boy. Ta. (Wow, maybe you and Bush are right after all … condescension is _fun_!) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/23 "2006-03-25T19:41:04Z")
These so called “signing statements” are bull shit. They are just a way of saying “fuck you I do what I want”. Maybe Congress should issue a law that outlaws signing statements. The President, whoever he is at the time, has 2 options -either sign a bill or veto it. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/24 "2006-03-25T20:09:45Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Yep. But you and I both know that somebody’s gonna come in here and slap that apologist label on both of us just for the mere _suggestion_ that it might be valuable to inspect the original sources. Drat! Had that “apologist” label all printed up and ready to paste, but **Unc** got me with a premptive strike! Curses! Foiled again! ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/25 "2006-03-25T20:31:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Drat! Had that “apologist” label all printed up and ready to paste, but **Unc** got me with a premptive strike! Curses! Foiled again! Your forgetting to twirl your handlebar mustache when you say that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/26 "2006-03-25T20:32:24Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Congress has the power to make laws. Congress has used that power to require the Executive Branch to provide information on intelligence gathering. Pretty straightforward. I’m not saying otherwise. I’m just trying to understand to what extent it can go in doing so. Are there no restrictions on what Congress can ask for? > [@](#): > > The implicit assumption in your “question” is that the legislature cannot restrict the president in any way in the exercise of his power, no matter how plenary that power is. Although that position seems to be the one Bush has chosen, it’s incorrect, and flies in the face of the separation of powers the founders envisioned. As one man put it “The founding fathers didn’t trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?”" I don’t think the president has plenary power in this respect, but does Congress (which is what you seem to be saying)? And you just confused me with the statement I underlined in your post. Doesn’t “plenary” mean “full” or “unlimited”? If the president has plenary power over something, can the Congress restrict that power? If so, then how can that power be called plenary? How does one limit something that is unlimited? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/27 "2006-03-25T20:36:26Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > These so called “signing statements” are bull shit. They are just a way of saying “fuck you I do what I want”. Maybe Congress should issue a law that outlaws signing statements. The President, whoever he is at the time, has 2 options -either sign a bill or veto it. End of story. Yeah, but he could just make a signing statement that the bill he’s signing to outlaw signing statements doesn’t really outlaw signing statements. I’d love to see the Court take a nice fat swing with a sledgehammer to these signing statements. It’s my opinion that if a law doesn’t say what you want it to, send it back. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/28 "2006-03-25T21:35:35Z")
> [@choie](#): > > No, John, I didn’t answer your direct question, I addressed the insulting and monumentally ignorant way you referred to Joe Congressperson as an “arbitrary member of congress.” Nothing ignorant about it. All Congressmen are not alike, and some have more authority than others, just like some have more security clearance than others. I’m a scientist. That’s the way we talk. It might be geeky, but it isn’t ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/29 "2006-03-25T21:59:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not saying otherwise. I’m just trying to understand to what extent it can go in doing so. Are there no restrictions on what Congress can ask for? Have you had a chance to peruse my earlier cite? It contains a good, albeit brief, discussion of some of these issues. In general, it seems that Congressional access to intelligence falls in an area of the law that hasn’t been judicially determined. Most of the time, Iran/Contra included, the president and Congress hammer out a mutually beneficial decision. Maybe this will be one of those times. Maybe Bush will actually honor his oath and follow the law, without having to be ordered to by Congress or the courts to do so. > [@JohnMace](#): > > I don’t think the president has plenary power in this respect, but does Congress (which is what you seem to be saying)? And you just confused me with the statement I underlined in your post. Doesn’t “plenary” mean “full” or “unlimited”? If the president has plenary power over something, can the Congress restrict that power? If so, then how can that power be called plenary? How does one limit something that is unlimited? Could Bush create a secret so big that not even he could keep it? I used the term plenary, when it should have been non-plenary, or even, statutorily created. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/30 "2006-03-25T22:04:17Z")
**John Mace** , It seems to me that the government only has the power to make things classified based on laws that the congress has legislated. That is, whence comes the power for the military, CIA, FBI, president, to declare any document or information classified? I believe those powers came from the congress. Therefore if the congress says “_if you want these previously extra-legal rights_, you have to do it the way we tell you,” is perfectly valid. My two cents. By the way, I’m going to start issuing signing statements of how _I_ interpret new laws. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/31 "2006-03-25T22:15:19Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Therefore if the congress says “_if you want these previously extra-legal rights_, you have to do it the way we tell you,” is perfectly valid. Pretend that was a well-formed sentence. Anyway, wht I’m trying to say is that you’re coming at this from the perspective that the default is that government entities can make whatever they want classified, and I don’t see that as so. I _think_ congress has long passed laws about what can and cannot be kept under wraps (like with the Freedom of Information Act). ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/32 "2006-03-25T22:41:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And I hope we can stay away from stuff like: _well, Bush has done so many illegal things that I’m sure this is illegal, too._ Well, you know, Occam’s Razor. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/33 "2006-03-25T23:03:31Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Have you had a chance to peruse my earlier cite? It contains a good, albeit brief, discussion of some of these issues. In general, it seems that Congressional access to intelligence falls in an area of the law that hasn’t been judicially determined. Most of the time, Iran/Contra included, the president and Congress hammer out a mutually beneficial decision. Maybe this will be one of those times. Maybe Bush will actually honor his oath and follow the law, without having to be ordered to by Congress or the courts to do so. I did. What it tells me is that Bush’s signing statment could be entirely benign, although I do understand the unwillingness of many people to grant him that benefit of the doubt. He does tend to push the envelope “a bit”. 🙂 **bup** : Can you cite the specific legislation you’re talking about ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/34 "2006-03-26T00:53:11Z")
It occurs to me that possibly Bush thinks “separation of powers” means that laws passed by the Legislative Branch don’t apply to people in the Executive Branch. I’m sure he had a Civics class in high school, but that was a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/35 "2006-03-26T07:09:48Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Is this kind of concentration of power in the executive branch in keeping with conservative principles in general, or does it only apply when the President is a Republican? Try to imagine folks like Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, **Shodan,** or **UncleBeer** arguing that Bill Clinton should’ve had the level of secrecy and unchecked executive power we’ve seen in the last five years. Yeah, me neither. The only principles the GOP has nowadays is “Power at any cost.” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/36 "2006-03-26T14:43:27Z")
> [@ggurl](#): > > The last President was not allowed to withhold anything, not even the details of his private sex life. Nonsense. He was not allowed to misrepresent the truth, but that does not mean that he was obligated to reveal any details that anyone demanded. Moreover, being called to testify in this specific case (i.e. the Lewinsky situation) does not mean that he was obligated to divulge any and all confidential matters, no matter how sensitive, and no matter how vital they were to the nation’s well-being. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/37 "2006-03-26T15:54:30Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Congress has the power to make laws. Congress has used that power to require the Executive Branch to provide information on intelligence gathering. Pretty straightforward. > > The implicit assumption in your “question” is that the legislature cannot restrict the president in any way in the exercise of his power, no matter how plenary that power is. Although that position seems to be the one Bush has chosen, it’s incorrect, and flies in the face of the separation of powers the founders envisioned. As one man put it “The founding fathers didn’t trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?”" Can Congress pass a law requiring the President to limit his pardons to those people approved by a joint Congressional committee? Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/38 "2006-03-26T16:36:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can Congress pass a law requiring the President to limit his pardons to those people approved by a joint Congressional committee? > > Why not? No. US v. Klein, 80 US 128. Is it that difficult for you to make your point without one of you silly hypotheticals? Is it so difficult for you to state: But **Hamlet** , one thing you left out is that there are limits to Congress’ abiliity to legislate into powers granted specifically and exclusively to the executive branch? Who knows, maybe, if we could save a little time, have an honest debate, and quit trying to play the gotcha game, we could get somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/39 "2006-03-26T17:19:02Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > No. US v. Klein, 80 US 128. > > Is it that difficult for you to make your point without one of you silly hypotheticals? Is it so difficult for you to state: But **Hamlet** , one thing you left out is that there are limits to Congress’ abiliity to legislate into powers granted specifically and exclusively to the executive branch? Who knows, maybe, if we could save a little time, have an honest debate, and quit trying to play the gotcha game, we could get somewhere. Was _Klein_ correctly decided? That is, do you agree with the underlying rationale, or do you simply accept that it’s a settled point, even if you don’t agree with the wisdom therein? And if you agree with the wisdom of _Klein_… then from whence came your newfound respect for the actual black-letter text? I agree with you, but it seems very unfair that you adopt a respect for textual analysis when it pleases you, and a fondness for the Living Breathing Anamatronic Lifelike Constitution when it does not. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750/40 "2006-03-26T17:41:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Was _Klein_ correctly decided? That is, do you agree with the underlying rationale, or do you simply accept that it’s a settled point, even if you don’t agree with the wisdom therein? It’s been over a decade since I’ve read the case, but from my quick review, it seems fine. The Constitution clearly grants the President the power to grant pardons, and the statute in question in Klein infringed upon that power, and on the power of the judiciary to determine the effects of said pardon. > [@Bricker](#): > > And if you agree with the wisdom of _Klein_… then from whence came your newfound respect for the actual black-letter text? I agree with you, but it seems very unfair that you adopt a respect for textual analysis when it pleases you, and a fondness for the Living Breathing Anamatronic Lifelike Constitution when it does not. How many times have we discussed the Constitution, you and I? Hundreds of posts? And, since I began here, you have consistently, repeatedly, and brainlesslyy continue to misstate, misunderstand, and/or ignore my position. Your steadfast refusal to understand, or even properly state, my position puts you in esteemed company with **Shodan** , **ElvisL!ves** , and their ilk. Even if I explained it to you for the 39th time, what effect would it have? Your adament refusal to grasp the idea that non-originalists (or whatever disparaging term you wish to use for those who disagree with you), are just as devoted to the text of the Constitution as you shows a failure to grasp even the simplist of points. You have it set in your mind that anyone who disagrees with your method of constitutional interpretation has no regard for the text and is just making it up as they go along. For 5 years I, and others, have tried to disabuse you of your inanity, all to no avail. I don’t see things changing anytime soon, either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-patriot-act-restrictions-dont-apply-to-me/349750.md?page=3)