->  JM> So Bush wants a strong Executive branch. He is not first President to
->  JM> want that.

-> More correctly, he wants a "Unitary Executive" so he can
prosecute his "War
-> on Terror."  A "Unitary Executive" is another term for
tinpot dictator.

Chirnside went off on this some time back, but he is a fool and easily
ignored.  You are not a fool, so could you tell me what objection you
have to the idea that there is one executive branch under one unitary
head?

You also seem to have a problem with the idea that, when a President
signs a bill, he can make a statement of what he interprets the bill to
mean.  Why is that?  Congress does the same thing in its legislative
history of the legislation.  By one researcher's count, this was done
1294 times prior to Reagan.

The unitary executive branch dates back to the writing of the
Constitution.  Presidential signing statements date back to the fifth
President of the United States.  Do you really dislike these ideas, or
are they just avenues to vent your dislike of your current President?

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a