Can President Bush keep the law from toppling his administration?
396409
the word is LYING. no answer to the dumb question though. \np.s. i'm a republican and i could find more incriminating quotes.
218000
A sitting President is effectively immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability.  However if the evidence was particularly damning, then the president would likely be impeached and then afterwards brought up on criminal charges.\n\nOnly one president has quit and none has been actually removed from office by Congressional action.  \n\nThere are a lot of nasty things the President has to authorize (directly or indirectly) in order to protect the country.  Many of these, while heinous, are not actually illegal -- and, in fact, lying to the American public is actually a job requirement.  \n\nJust take a look at the people here on Yahoo Answers and you'll see why most Americans need to be lied to.  They not only can't handle the truth; they prefer comforting lies.
256610
No - if Congress says no, Bush, with a 34% approval rating, doesn't have the strength to fight it.
873355
Im afraid they can son. And no he cant do anything about it. The law is the law. Not always fair, sometimes harsh but none of us are above it.
634220
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits federal military units from interfering with local law enforcement, except in time of war, insurrection or national emergency.  By using unarmed national guard units in supportive roles Bush is hoping slide this one past the lawyers. He apparently has given up his argument that anything goes because we are in a state of war.
739735
IF we do it will keep President Bush in office longer. It's the only way that his term can be extended.
140253
Because he can.  According to what I've heard lately, the Executive Branch is above the law.  He's just testing out how far he can take this.
461701
"We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers Ñ and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less. According to Mr. Gonzales, the administration can be relied upon to police itself and hold the line between national security and civil liberties on its own. Set aside the rather huge problem that our democracy doesn't work that way. It's not clear that this administration knows where the line is, much less that it is capable of defending it. Mr. Gonzales's own dedication to the truth is in considerable doubt. In sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing last year, he dismissed as 'hypothetical' a question about whether he believed the president had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In fact, Mr. Gonzales knew Mr. Bush was doing just that, and had signed off on it as White House counsel. ... Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another."
633531
It can only become Law in the White House when the president signs a law that was sent to him by the House and Senate. He can reject the law by Veto and then the House can override his veto by a 2 thirds majority vote. If they can't get the 2/3rds vote..the presidents rejection stands and the law is overridden. The Republicans want to help you immigrate to this country. They just want you to do it legally.
1143761
As long as you don't threaten to harm President Bush there are no repercussions legal or otherwise.  It's called Freedom of Speech.
498589
Our current president claims "executive privelege" over everything.  He has NOT ONCE excercised his veto power, the first president in history to never veto a single tiny bill from Congress.  His answer is to instead is to sign a congressional bill into law and then immediately write a signing statement saying how the law does not apply to him, or simply issue an executive order reversing whatever the bill said when it doesn't suit him.  If that isn't unchecked power, I don't know what is.  His cronies have also been instrumental in passing laws dismantling the bill of rights, it is just now starting that federal judges are getting such cases challenged, but the media isn't reporting the rulings (Scalia totally grilled the Bush administration, the very people that appointed him).
762429
No because l really think Bush will actually do a better job with the Democrats in control of Congress. While he had no checks and balances there was no reason for him to actually do any real legislating. Now he has no choice but to work with congress without having a blank check that is stamped by congress. He can either work with congress or be a lame duck.
3220
No, but he could declare "martial law", and halt all elections - thereby remaining president indefinately.\n\nI've included a link with more details.
918300
He might be, but Congress still has the power to override his vetoes and put measures into effect even without his OK.\n\nThat's what the "checks and balances" system of government here in America is all about.
316971
Yes, Americans will allow Bush to do what he wants. The administration has succeeded in paralyzing many people into non-action. I recommend that you go here, and get invovled!\nBush is not,"We The People", but it is clear he doesn't care much what we think.\n\nhttp://www.thefourreasons.org/
439123
Absolutely not.  Contrary to what Mr. Bush claims, I don't think that the Authorization for the Use of Force gave him the power to listen to conversations without evidence.  It's a constitutional right that we should be secure in our property and effects, and the government can NOT remove that right without due process (i.e. a warrant).  The day that we let him take that power, we can also say goodbye to free speech.
95709
If it within the confines of existing law I don't have a problem with it. I'm one who believes that president doesn't not have a lot of power. The constitution limited the presidents powers inorder to keep the government in the hands of the people thru it's elected representives. Additionally, the Commander In Chief status(Article II) placed on the president was meant to keep military generals or other officers from taking over the country like we seen happen so many times in other countries ie Cuba, and many African nations.