NationStates Jolt Archive


Signing Statements.

Lunatic Goofballs
24-07-2006, 17:08
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/lawyers.bush.ap/index.html

"Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said."

vs.

"Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate."

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-028.gif
Ashmoria
24-07-2006, 17:13
have there been any court cases/rulings coming from these signing statements?

they seem to be illegal/unconstitutional to me since we have no "line item veto" that allows a president to modify bills brought to him for signing.
HotRodia
24-07-2006, 17:22
Damn politicians. Can't they just use English instead of signing?
Kazus
24-07-2006, 17:27
Signing statements are another sign that Bush thinks he is King. What the fuck is Congress even doing if you are just going to modify the bill as you see fit?
Deep Kimchi
24-07-2006, 17:28
Signing statements are another sign that Bush thinks he is King. What the fuck is Congress even doing if you are just going to modify the bill as you see fit?

Well, the Supreme Court is going to modify the bill as it sees fit...
Kazus
24-07-2006, 17:29
Well, the Supreme Court is going to modify the bill as it sees fit...

What is this "Supreme Court" you speak of?
Deep Kimchi
24-07-2006, 17:31
What is this "Supreme Court" you speak of?

You're not an American, are you? :rolleyes:
Schwarzchild
24-07-2006, 18:03
He is half-right. Signing statements are not unusual of themselves. It is the purpose Bush is using them for that is unprecedented, where he chooses to interpret a law as he sees fit, or make exceptions to the enforcement of the law.

Signing statements usually accompanied a law with a sentiment from the President or a functional statement. Up until this President they were rarely, if ever used to change a law right on the spot. A good example of misuse of a signing statement is what he did with the anti-torture law that McCain received vast support for and Congress passed easily. Bush essentially signed the bill (making it a law) and then immediately in his signing statement cited exceptions to the law as the Chief Executive with no oversight ability for the very body that wrote the law to correct him. Basically he said, "yep this is the law, but I can break it because I'm the President and I am allowed."

Unacceptable. Signing statements need to be outlawed and this President needs to be corrected in his opinion that he can carve exceptions to the law out in signing statements.
Dempublicents1
24-07-2006, 18:12
He is half-right. Signing statements are not unusual of themselves.

When all other presidents combined have only done it 600 times, you can say it is fairly unusual. It happens, but it isn't the norm. It says that Bush, on the other hand, has already hit 800.

Unacceptable. Signing statements need to be outlawed and this President needs to be corrected in his opinion that he can carve exceptions to the law out in signing statements.

I don't think that signing statements necessarily need be outlawed. I do think, however, that it needs to be made clear that signing statements are not binding law. Only the legislative branch can make binding law. So Bush can write whatever he wants on a bill as he signs it, but the bill itself is now the law - not what Bush wrote.
Daistallia 2104
24-07-2006, 18:14
I swear there was something on this several months ago, bu I can't find it...
Gauthier
24-07-2006, 18:20
It's becoming apparent that Dear Leader is using the signing statements like a line-item veto, which a President isn't supposed to have.
Dishonorable Scum
24-07-2006, 18:33
Signing statements themselves are not illegal or unconstitutional. However, the way Bush is using them IS illegal and unconstitutional. And the premise under which the Bush administration is using them, that the president is the sole interpreter of the law, is also unconstitutional - the US Constitution gave that role to the courts. The president is the executive, mean that he executes the law. He has no power to create or annul laws.

Of all the things that Bush has done, his misuse of signing statements may be the most blatantly and unarguably illegal, and hence the most impeachable.
Xenophobialand
24-07-2006, 18:46
Signing statements themselves are not illegal or unconstitutional. However, the way Bush is using them IS illegal and unconstitutional. And the premise under which the Bush administration is using them, that the president is the sole interpreter of the law, is also unconstitutional - the US Constitution gave that role to the courts. The president is the executive, mean that he executes the law. He has no power to create or annul laws.

Of all the things that Bush has done, his misuse of signing statements may be the most blatantly and unarguably illegal, and hence the most impeachable.

Actually, it isn't in the Constitution. It has, however, been standing procedure for the SCOTUS to decide whether the law is or is not constitutional since the Jefferson administration, specifically Marbury v. Madison yielded them that power.
CSW
24-07-2006, 19:11
have there been any court cases/rulings coming from these signing statements?

they seem to be illegal/unconstitutional to me since we have no "line item veto" that allows a president to modify bills brought to him for signing.
No one has standing to sue the president over the signing statements. That's what the ABA is asking congress to change, so they can sue and force the president to enforce the bills the way congress intends for them to be enforced.
Kazus
24-07-2006, 19:13
You're not an American, are you? :rolleyes:

No I was merely commenting on the fact that Bush even overlooks the Supreme Court when doing the Kingly things he does.

If you dont like a bill, veto it. No sense in making congress look like they are passing a bill everyone can agree with when you are just going to tilt the favor in your direction.
Dempublicents1
24-07-2006, 19:15
No one has standing to sue the president over the signing statements. That's what the ABA is asking congress to change, so they can sue and force the president to enforce the bills the way congress intends for them to be enforced.

The problem is that, according to the court, members of the executive branch are under no legal obligation to enforce the law. As it turns out, you cannot sue them for not doing their jobs.
CSW
24-07-2006, 19:17
The problem is that, according to the court, members of the executive branch are under no legal obligation to enforce the law. As it turns out, you cannot sue them for not doing their jobs.
The ABA is asking for congress to grant standing to sue to get them to enforce it, as I said, and if they refuse to still, then it's contempt of court for them.
Deep Kimchi
24-07-2006, 19:17
No I was merely commenting on the fact that Bush even overlooks the Supreme Court when doing the Kingly things he does.

If you dont like a bill, veto it. No sense in making congress look like they are passing a bill everyone can agree with when you are just going to tilt the favor in your direction.

No judicial body is going to hold me to task for not enforcing it.

Sure, pass the bill. And then watch me not enforce it. Sue? You won't be able to.
John Galts Vision
24-07-2006, 19:19
Actually, it isn't in the Constitution. It has, however, been standing procedure for the SCOTUS to decide whether the law is or is not constitutional since the Jefferson administration, specifically Marbury v. Madison yielded them that power.

Well, they claimed that power with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. Small difference, but big in its implications. The court took the power of judicial review through its own volition. John Marshall was effective in making it stick.

Since the Supreme Court took on the power of being the final arbiter of constitutionality, who's going to tell them that said power itself is extra-constitutional?
CSW
24-07-2006, 19:24
Well, they claimed that power with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. Small difference, but big in its implications. The court took the power of judicial review through its own volition. John Marshall was effective in making it stick.

Since the Supreme Court took on the power of being the final arbiter of constitutionality, who's going to tell them that said power itself is extra-constitutional?
In the words of justice Marshall:
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law?
Kazus
24-07-2006, 19:28
No judicial body is going to hold me to task for not enforcing it.

Sure, pass the bill. And then watch me not enforce it. Sue? You won't be able to.

The supreme court is being packed with judges like Alito who will lick Bush's balls anyday, anytime. Bush can do whatever he wants and they wont care, rendering the Supreme Court obsolete.
Intangelon
24-07-2006, 19:30
Well, the Supreme Court is going to modify the bill as it sees fit...
Here we go again...

SCOTUS doens't modify. It determines constutionality. It strikes down whole laws, not bits of them.
Intangelon
24-07-2006, 19:35
No I was merely commenting on the fact that Bush even overlooks the Supreme Court when doing the Kingly things he does.

If you dont like a bill, veto it. No sense in making congress look like they are passing a bill everyone can agree with when you are just going to tilt the favor in your direction.
Bush uses signing statements in order to give the impression that he doesn't use the veto. If he vetoed every bill that he had made signing statements on in order to get what he wanted, he'd have some large portion of 800 vetos.

And Dear Leader doesn't want to be seen as someone who vetos and stands in the way of Congress. That'd be bad for his image.
Intangelon
24-07-2006, 19:35
The problem is that, according to the court, members of the executive branch are under no legal obligation to enforce the law. As it turns out, you cannot sue them for not doing their jobs.
What about the tort concept of "nonfeasance"?
CSW
24-07-2006, 19:37
What about the tort concept of "nonfeasance"?
Again, no one has standing to sue.
Dempublicents1
24-07-2006, 19:38
What about the tort concept of "nonfeasance"?

What about it? The Supreme Court recently ruled that, regardless of what they *should* do, members of the executive branch (in this case, police specifically) do not have to do their jobs. They do not have to protect, nor do they have to act when a law is broken. They do not have to enforce restraining orders or stop a fight. They have no legal responsibility unless they choose to act, and then they simply must act in accordance with the law.
Demented Hamsters
24-07-2006, 19:52
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/lawyers.bush.ap/index.html

"Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said."

vs.

"Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate."

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-028.gif
"Nothing unusual or inappropriate"?
That's a matter of conjecture and opinion.
A person having one glass of wine a day is nothing unusual or inappropriate.

However, another person polishing off 4 or 5 bottles a night, followed by tequilla laybacks...well, I think most of us would agree that behaviour is not really appropriate.

Maybe this Signing is just GWB's new addiction. He obviously has an addictive personality disorder. He no longer hits the bottle or snorts the happy powder. Yet he still has that inner drive to obsessively fixate on something and abuse it totally.

Signing is GWB's new drug!
Xenophobialand
24-07-2006, 20:06
What about it? The Supreme Court recently ruled that, regardless of what they *should* do, members of the executive branch (in this case, police specifically) do not have to do their jobs. They do not have to protect, nor do they have to act when a law is broken. They do not have to enforce restraining orders or stop a fight. They have no legal responsibility unless they choose to act, and then they simply must act in accordance with the law.

Doesn't that come dangerously close to abridging the constitutional requirement for the Executive to uphold the law? Because I'm thinking that taken to it's logical conclusion, such a precedent would allow an executive that enforces murder statutes at all times other than when it wishes, such as, say, when it orders a hit on its political rivals. That, in effect, would be an invitation to no true or constitutional law at all.
Dempublicents1
24-07-2006, 20:11
Doesn't that come dangerously close to abridging the constitutional requirement for the Executive to uphold the law? Because I'm thinking that taken to it's logical conclusion, such a precedent would allow an executive that enforces murder statutes at all times other than when it wishes, such as, say, when it orders a hit on its political rivals. That, in effect, would be an invitation to no true or constitutional law at all.

I think it comes dangerously close to all sorts of things, but it is the standing ruling at this point.
Taredas
24-07-2006, 20:29
I tend to agree with the sentiments of the current Congressman from Massachusetts that the Bush administration's preferred version of democracy is a plebiscite, which means that he has a lot in common with such current and former world leaders such as Charles du Gaulle, Hugo Chavez, and the President of Iran (ironic, isn't it?). The excessive and unconstitutional use of signing statements is just a symptom of this underlying pattern.
Intangelon
24-07-2006, 20:32
What about it? The Supreme Court recently ruled that, regardless of what they *should* do, members of the executive branch (in this case, police specifically) do not have to do their jobs. They do not have to protect, nor do they have to act when a law is broken. They do not have to enforce restraining orders or stop a fight. They have no legal responsibility unless they choose to act, and then they simply must act in accordance with the law.
Am I wrong to think that's at least a little unsettling?
Dempublicents1
24-07-2006, 20:40
Am I wrong to think that's at least a little unsettling?

I certainly don't think so. I find it to be incredibly unsettling.
Intangelon
24-07-2006, 20:42
I certainly don't think so. I find it to be incredibly unsettling.
Okay, me too. Good.

What's the remedy? Legislation clearly wouldn't work, would it?
Deep Kimchi
24-07-2006, 20:45
Okay, me too. Good.

What's the remedy? Legislation clearly wouldn't work, would it?

You would have to amend the Constitution.
Schwarzchild
25-07-2006, 01:28
When all other presidents combined have only done it 600 times, you can say it is fairly unusual. It happens, but it isn't the norm. It says that Bush, on the other hand, has already hit 800.

I was not commenting on the number, I was commenting on signing statements themselves. They are not unusual, that this President is abusing the privilege is unusual (but not unexpected).


I don't think that signing statements necessarily need be outlawed. I do think, however, that it needs to be made clear that signing statements are not binding law. Only the legislative branch can make binding law. So Bush can write whatever he wants on a bill as he signs it, but the bill itself is now the law - not what Bush wrote.

That makes sense, however I am very much NOT in favor of signing statements at all. It's just another privilege the Executive has abused, until the seperation of powers is reestablished as paramount, temptation needs to be removed.
Dempublicents1
25-07-2006, 15:41
Okay, me too. Good.

What's the remedy? Legislation clearly wouldn't work, would it?

It *might*, I suppose. Legislators could make it a crime for a police officer/fireman/etc. to not do their job, but I could see how that could definitely be abused. And, most likely, it still wouldn't open it up to the individual citizen to sue an officer who didn't enforce a restraining order/etc. It would simply allow the state to pursue that course if they wished to.
Dishonorable Scum
25-07-2006, 20:04
Latest on the signing statements front: Arlen Specter is preparing to sue George W. Bush (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060724/D8J2LC50B.html)
A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
It's not a question of Bush simply not enforcing the law. By issuing the signing statements, Bush is doing something that actively violates the US Constitution. Specter thinks it's actionable, at least.
Lunatic Goofballs
25-07-2006, 20:25
I like Arlen Specter. He's a Happy Mediumist. :)
Muravyets
26-07-2006, 04:53
I tend to agree with the sentiments of the current Congressman from Massachusetts that the Bush administration's preferred version of democracy is a plebiscite, which means that he has a lot in common with such current and former world leaders such as Charles du Gaulle, Hugo Chavez, and the President of Iran (ironic, isn't it?). The excessive and unconstitutional use of signing statements is just a symptom of this underlying pattern.
I don't think it's ironic at all. Dear Little Leaders all, like peas in a pod.
Intangelon
26-07-2006, 09:28
It *might*, I suppose. Legislators could make it a crime for a police officer/fireman/etc. to not do their job, but I could see how that could definitely be abused. And, most likely, it still wouldn't open it up to the individual citizen to sue an officer who didn't enforce a restraining order/etc. It would simply allow the state to pursue that course if they wished to.
Ugh. The last thing we need is more avenues for suit-happy Americans and their greedheaded lawyers to travel.
Myotisinia
26-07-2006, 19:08
Signing statements are another sign that Bush thinks he is King. What the fuck is Congress even doing if you are just going to modify the bill as you see fit?

Though I'm not condoning the practice, how is this any different than Congress attaching their favorite pork barrel projects to existing pending legislation to sneak them in under the radar? I'd like an egregious example of of a signed statement that Bush has done to better determine whether or not we should hoist his head on a petard first.

Just trying to better understand this, is all.
Llewdor
26-07-2006, 19:12
Unacceptable. Signing statements need to be outlawed and this President needs to be corrected in his opinion that he can carve exceptions to the law out in signing statements.
It's idiotic to give the President this sort of power and expect him not to use it.
Rhaomi
26-07-2006, 19:17
I found this little gem in a story by the Witchita Eagle:

"In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush's use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the Bush Administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a signing statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement."

I don't know whether that's funny, or sad. You decide!
Farnhamia
26-07-2006, 19:28
Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe seems to have been following this story. The Globe has an archive (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2006&Submit=DISPLAY) of all signing statements, not just W's, plus examples (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/).
Sane Outcasts
26-07-2006, 19:29
Though I'm not condoning the practice, how is this any different than Congress attaching their favorite pork barrel projects to existing pending legislation to sneak them in under the radar? I'd like an egregious example of of a signed statement that Bush has done to better determine whether or not we should hoist his head on a petard first.

Just trying to better understand this, is all.

It comes down to maintaining the balance of power among the three branches. The power of writing and modifying law is Congress' area of authority, and there have been challenges in the past to other Presidential powers, the line-item veto for one, that would have given that power to another branch. These signing statements, by indicating selective enforcement of laws, enroach on the same territory by simply dismissing parts of bills as non-applicable, rather than simply vetoing them right out.

For example, in the signing statement to the reauthorization of the Patriot act, Bush claimed exceptions to provisions that would have required the Executive Branch to submit information to Congress pursuant to Congressional oversight, effectively meaning that those parts would not apply if the Executive so chose. Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-8.html)
Dempublicents1
26-07-2006, 19:33
Ugh. The last thing we need is more avenues for suit-happy Americans and their greedheaded lawyers to travel.

And, most likely, it still wouldn't open it up to the individual citizen to sue an officer who didn't enforce a restraining order/etc. It would simply allow the state to pursue that course if they wished to.

Huh?

Meanwhile, do you really think the woman whose kids were killed because the cops wouldn't go looking for them or enforce the restraining order against her ex-husband didn't have cause to sue, or convince the state to prosecute?
Farnhamia
26-07-2006, 19:35
It comes down to maintaining the balance of power among the three branches. The power of writing and modifying law is Congress' area of authority, and there have been challenges in the past to other Presidential powers, the line-item veto for one, that would have given that power to another branch. These signing statements, by indicating selective enforcement of laws, enroach on the same territory by simply dismissing parts of bills as non-applicable, rather than simply vetoing them right out.

For example, in the signing statement to the reauthorization of the Patriot act, Bush claimed exceptions to provisions that would have required the Executive Branch to submit information to Congress pursuant to Congressional oversight, effectively meaning that those parts would not apply if the Executive so chose. Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-8.html)
I think a recurring theme in the Bush signing statements is saying that the President or anyone in the Executive Branch is not obliged to provide any information it doesn't wish to give out, usually because the Chief Executive deems it against national security to do so. The Bush Administration is one of, if not the most secretive administrations we've ever had. Their attitude has always been that they are in charge and they will tell the citizens of this country what they need to know, so please stop asking questions. If you question the administration, the terrorists win.
Dempublicents1
26-07-2006, 19:40
I think a recurring theme in the Bush signing statements is saying that the President or anyone in the Executive Branch is not obliged to provide any information it doesn't wish to give out, usually because the Chief Executive deems it against national security to do so. The Bush Administration is one of, if not the most secretive administrations we've ever had. Their attitude has always been that they are in charge and they will tell the citizens of this country what they need to know, so please stop asking questions. If you question the administration, the terrorists win.

Another common theme seems to be, "The executive branch is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, not the judicial branch." It seems fairly consistent that the statement basically says, "We're going to decide when this is applicable, as per the Constitutional powers we are claiming."
Sane Outcasts
26-07-2006, 19:41
I think a recurring theme in the Bush signing statements is saying that the President or anyone in the Executive Branch is not obliged to provide any information it doesn't wish to give out, usually because the Chief Executive deems it against national security to do so. The Bush Administration is one of, if not the most secretive administrations we've ever had. Their attitude has always been that they are in charge and they will tell the citizens of this country what they need to know, so please stop asking questions. If you question the administration, the terrorists win.

The prevailing trend in most of the signing statements has been to claim exceptions for the executive branch. Usually with the phrase "consistent with the Constitutional duties of the Executive", meaning he's pre-emptively claiming national security as his legal defense. I remember the statement for the McCain Amendment, the one that banned torture of detainees, caused a lot of furor because Bush claimed exceptions to the sections that banned mistreatement and torture if they prohibited activities "consistent with the Constitutional duties of the Executive".
Katganistan
26-07-2006, 19:45
Only two more years of this bullshit.

Then we get to see what the next President does to rape us all.
Farnhamia
26-07-2006, 19:48
Only two more years of this bullshit.

Then we get to see what the next President does to rape us all.
I do hope the next one at least lets us llie on our backs, I'm getting tired of being constantly bent over.
BogMarsh
26-07-2006, 19:55
Signing statements are another sign that Bush thinks he is King. What the fuck is Congress even doing if you are just going to modify the bill as you see fit?


Congress is a group that is over 50% rubber-stampers for Bush.
That's why the People elected those congressmen, and not the other cadidates.
BogMarsh
26-07-2006, 19:56
I do hope the next one at least lets us llie on our backs, I'm getting tired of being constantly bent over.


*blows a raspberry*

BOHICA!
Arthais101
26-07-2006, 20:01
Though I'm not condoning the practice, how is this any different than Congress attaching their favorite pork barrel projects to existing pending legislation to sneak them in under the radar? I'd like an egregious example of of a signed statement that Bush has done to better determine whether or not we should hoist his head on a petard first.

Just trying to better understand this, is all.

Because CONGRESS has the power to modify law, the PRESIDENT does not.

I know that seems sorta wishy washy, but that is the point. Congress can attack riders to bills because...well...making and modifying bills is what congress does. The president doesn't have the power to modify a bill that hits his desk, all he has is an up/down veto power.

So while it may be somewhat shady and unethical to insert pork barrel riders into bills hoping to sneak em past, that is at least within the constitutional powers of congress.
Arthais101
26-07-2006, 20:16
An interesting piece here. The white house seems to be trying to block Specter's bill by stating:

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

So in other words the white house is saying "all we are doing is adding our commentary, we are not using the signing statements as justification for not following the law".

I have a very simple solution. Make Specter's bill to allow a suit of the president trigger only in the event that the executive attempts to stop the execution of the law based on a signing statement.

In other words, if they are only advisements, then fine, let them be advisements, and that's fine. But if he uses them to try and get around the law as written, the bill triggers".

The idea of "don't do this, because we promise we won't do anything bad" is insuffient. So let the law be "we are not activating this provision now, for we are giving you the benefit of the doubt you won't do anything wrong, but if you try, we're going to take you to court"