Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
The signing statements are pretty blatent in their 'I'm above the law' attitude.
It's no wonder he never vetos though, because he essentially just says he's not going to follow the law as written. How is it not a police-state when we have an executive that will do whatever it wants to? He's enforcing, writing and interpreting the law all at the same time. Isn't that textbook tyranny/police-state activity?
|
I'm not trying to say that the Bush admin isn't advocating or pushing us towards a bigger police state. I'm saying that they are not the only ones to do it.
The USA was started on the slippery slope to police statedom since the early 1900's with most administrations pursuing it. Some less than others, but invariably they almost all had a hand in it. All one needs for any semblance of evidence to it is to look at the growth of the federal government. Look at how state and local governments start following the practices of the feds. When agents of any part of the government have 'immunity' for their actions, other than to get voted out next election cycle, you have forwarded the progress of tyranny/the police state.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|