[Landos Mustache]

"President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds."

Hmm, didn't I mention a few months ago that it wouldn't be long before he started doing this...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

[Gossamer]

I wonder if he'll keep doing this if he gets reelected?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I wonder if he'll keep doing this if he gets reelected?

Ha Ha ha

But to answer your terms, he will probably change a few rules so he can be.

[Y3a]

So arrest him....

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Ha Ha ha

But to answer your terms, he will probably change a few rules so he can be.

I doubt that he will. Aside from requiring a Constitutional amendment that would take years to get through the states (far longer than he has remaining in his term of office), he has another problem: Clinton -Bill, not Hillary- has expressed interest in the very same thing.

If such an amendment were to be passed, Bush would very likely find himself up against Bill Clinton in the next election. Bush can't beat Bill Clinton in an election, and he knows it.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I doubt that he will. Aside from requiring a Constitutional amendment that would take years to get through the states (far longer than he has remaining in his term of office), he has another problem: Clinton -Bill, not Hillary- has expressed interest in the very same thing.

If such an amendment were to be passed, Bush would very likely find himself up against Bill Clinton in the next election. Bush can't beat Bill Clinton in an election, and he knows it.

Hey I didn't bring it up, Glossy did.

[Gossamer]

I realize the title of the article includes iTunes, but what did Microsoft confirm? The only other place iTunes is mentioned in the article is at the end when talking about Apple. The title makes it sound like the Zune will be compatible with iTunes.
And is it just me, or does 'Zune' sound like a focus group approved corporate invention of a word?

[BRussell]

I'd like to see where this (the signing statements) goes. At this point, it just seems to be superfluous, just for kicks. Is Bush actually going to assert some legal status for these things? If a bill becomes law because he signs it, is he later going to just say that it wasn't really law because of his signing statement?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I realize the title of the article includes iTunes, but what did Microsoft confirm? The only other place iTunes is mentioned in the article is at the end when talking about Apple. The title makes it sound like the Zune will be compatible with iTunes.
And is it just me, or does 'Zune' sound like a focus group approved corporate invention of a word?

Maybe Bush should veto the name.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I realize the title of the article includes iTunes, but what did Microsoft confirm? The only other place iTunes is mentioned in the article is at the end when talking about Apple. The title makes it sound like the Zune will be compatible with iTunes.
And is it just me, or does 'Zune' sound like a focus group approved corporate invention of a word?

I am so holding that above stupidity over your head forever....

[black bear theory]

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

the president has two options with any law sent to him - sign it or veto it. i don't object to the idea of signing statements, except in the case where he expresses reservations about the constitutionality (that's what the veto is for) or decides that he may not follow the law he just signed because he doesn't feel like it.

if he decides to sign a bill into law and then breaks it, he should be tried for breaking that law. simle as that.

i'm not sure if this has been the case yet. (possibly mccains anti-torture bill?)

[Dork.]

Do some googling for "unitary executive" to find out why Bush is doing this. There's a good article here.

My take is that past Presidents have used signing statements to clarify how they intend to interpret parts of the law that they felt needed clarification in order for the President to do his job correctly. After all, the job of the Executive Branch is to... well... make sure that laws are executed faithfully. since it always takes some time for a dispute to wind its way through the courts, the President does need some leeway for interpretation when the statute isn't clear enough.

Bush has taken this a step further, though, and used his signing statements to push alternative interpretations that are clearly at odds with Congress' intent. By doing this, he is basically short-circuiting the courts by stating that he can judge what is constitutional or not on his own, and by signing bills (but stating that he will ignore what he doesn't like) he's basically construed a line-item veto out of thin air.

This is just plain wrong, and upsets the balance of power in the country. This isn't a partisan issue, either. Even if you approve of the way Bush is runnign the country, can you imagine what ywould happen if Hillary ever got a hold of this power?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I realize the title of the article includes iTunes, but what did Microsoft confirm? The only other place iTunes is mentioned in the article is at the end when talking about Apple. The title makes it sound like the Zune will be compatible with iTunes.
And is it just me, or does 'Zune' sound like a focus group approved corporate invention of a word?

Woah...I was reading the Zune post and wondered where this post of mine went...I'd like to blame a forum burp but it's much more likely to have been my fault for having 5-10 windows open.
SWG: This is nothing compared to your 'Bush could get reelected' rant.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Woah...I was reading the Zune post and wondered where this post of mine went...I'd like to blame a forum burp but it's much more likely to have been my fault for having 5-10 windows open.
SWG: This is nothing compared to your 'Bush could get reelected' rant.

Sure sure

[davesimondotcom]

He's not violating the Constitution until the Supreme Court says he is. Not because some ABA lawyers do.

And as far as I can tell, this is a very minor "infraction" if it is indeed such.

[Chuckit]

He's not violating the Constitution; his signing statements just don't have any legal validity. I could write them too without violating the Constitution.

[Rumor]

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

He's not violating the Constitution; his signing statements just don't have any legal validity. I could write them too without violating the Constitution.

Except your signing statement doesn't carry any weight to it whatsoever, since you haven't sworn the Presidential oath in the past four years. He has, and has to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.

Part of the Constitution is the bit that says that the Congress makes laws, the President enforces and carries them out, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. By issuing statements that offer an independant interpretation at odds with the Congress, the President is trying to sabotage the separation of powers that was built into the document he swort to protect.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

He's not violating the Constitution until the Supreme Court says he is. Not because some ABA lawyers do.

And as far as I can tell, this is a very minor "infraction" if it is indeed such.

I agree with you that just because the ABA says so doesn't make it so, but I happen to think they're correct. And it's no mere "minor infraction", it's the President circumventing the plain intent of Congress. Which is wild, since they're supposed to both be controlled by the same party!

[Landos Mustache]

If it is "minor" where do you draw the line once it has been broken?

[davesimondotcom]

Have any of these statements ever been enforced by the Executive branch? Or are we talking about certain parts of laws that the Bush Administration is NOT enforcing?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Except your signing statement doesn't carry any weight to it whatsoever, since you haven't sworn the Presidential oath in the past four years. He has, and has to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.

Part of the Constitution is the bit that says that the Congress makes laws, the President enforces and carries them out, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. By issuing statements that offer an independant interpretation at odds with the Congress, the President is trying to sabotage the separation of powers that was built into the document he swort to protect.

The president has the right just as much as anyone else to offer his opinion on things. He is in the Bully Pulpit. He just has to realize that his opinions don't actually have any legal force.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The president has the right just as much as anyone else to offer his opinion on things. He is in the Bully Pulpit. He just has to realize that his opinions don't actually have any legal force.

So why is he signing bills into law when, in his statements, he claims portions of the bills are unconstitutional and/or he doesn't have to enforce them? That seems to go against his duty to defend the Constitution and faithfully enforce the law. The President is entitled to his opinions, but using an official signing statement to de-claw legislation seems to go a bit further than that. If he feels the law is unconstitutional, he should veto it, simple as that. Sometimes I feel like we've been magically transported to bizarro land...

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I doubt that he will. Aside from requiring a Constitutional amendment that would take years to get through the states (far longer than he has remaining in his term of office), he has another problem: Clinton -Bill, not Hillary- has expressed interest in the very same thing.

If such an amendment were to be passed, Bush would very likely find himself up against Bill Clinton in the next election. Bush can't beat Bill Clinton in an election, and he knows it.

B.S. Clinton only won because of Perot. He would loose so big it would be pitiful. Both Democrats and Republicans hate him for what he did to the office. He is the ONLY president to be impeached.


Oops, Andrew Johnson was also impeached.


Johnson, a Southern Democrat who became president after Lincoln's assassination, supported a mild policy of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The Radical Republicans in Congress were furious at his leniency toward ex-Confederates and obvious lack of concern for ex-slaves, demonstrated by his veto of civil rights bills and opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment. To protect Radical Republicans in Johnson's administration and diminish the strength of the president, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which prohibited the president from dismissing office holders without the Senate's approval. A defiant Johnson tested the constitutionality of the Act by attempting to oust Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. His violation of the Act became the basis for impeachment in 1868. But the Senate was one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict, and Johnson was acquitted May 26, 1868.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itai195

So why is he signing bills into law when, in his statements, he claims portions of the bills are unconstitutional and/or he doesn't have to enforce them?

Because he's a bleeding moron.

Originally Posted by itai195

That seems to go against his duty to defend the Constitution and faithfully enforce the law. The President is entitled to his opinions, but using an official signing statement to de-claw legislation seems to go a bit further than that.

Once again, his signing statements do not actually declaw legislation. If he refuses to do his job, he can do so with or without signing statements. They have no legal validity, so it doesn't matter whether or not he writes them.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

B.S. Clinton only won because of Perot. He would loose so big it would be pitiful.

Right, Perot really ****ed Dole up, what with how Dole could have gotten every single vote that went to Perot and still lost.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Both Democrats and Republicans hate him for what he did to the office. He is the ONLY president to be impeached.

His approval ratings were still not as awful as Bush's, were they?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Once again, his signing statements do not actually declaw legislation. If he refuses to do his job, he can do so with or without signing statements. They have no legal validity, so it doesn't matter whether or not he writes them.

But what do we do if he thinks they have legal validity and asserts them? What did we do after we found out he was ignoring the wiretapping laws because of his interpretation of his powers? Do you really think we'll do anything if he ignores this McCain bill and continues to approve torture? It will probably win him and his party more votes, that's all.

His approval ratings were still not as awful as Bush's, were they?

Clinton's approval ratings at the height of his impeachment were higher than Bush's immediately after the fall of Baghdad (around 75 vs. 70, I believe). And they were about twice as high as Bush's are right now. People liked their Bubba, there's no doubt about that.

[Chuckit]

Then we impeach him, remove him from office and punish him. A president ignoring the law is a problem in general. Signing statements themselves are not the problem.

[itai195]

You're right that signing statements themselves are not the problem, the problem is that the president is using them instead of vetoing bills he thinks are unconstitutional, which is his constitutional responsibility.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

He's not violating the Constitution; his signing statements just don't have any legal validity. I could write them too without violating the Constitution.

I doubt SWG even knows what the Constitution is. Cut him some slack.\

BTW In case SWG didn't get it. CNN isn't saying Bush is violating the Constitution. ABA is.

And they are spreading FUD.

I doubt if he even read the article.

SWG has a bad case of foot in mouth when he posts things he doesn't understand assuming they are bad.

[Dork.]

According to that article I linked to a few posts back, the Presidents' signing statements do carry some legal weight in the courts, at least more than yours or mine would....

The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements. Indeed, in two important decisions -- the Chadha and Bowsher decisions - the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws. Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too.

[Landos Mustache]

"Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dob...y26/index.html

[BRussell]

I know the Hamdan case (probably the most important of the Gitmo cases) also referred to Bush's signing statement. Actually, Scalia used the signing statement as part of his dissent.

I agree with davesimon that this is, right now, more of a problem in theory than in practice. There's nothing wrong with signing statements if they just provide some context and some presidential background that can be used to understand the law. It's probably a good thing.

But in the context of Bush's (really Cheney's, by all accounts) desire to expand presidential power, we really do need to watch this closely. The problem would arise if he basically used it as a back-door veto and simply refused to obey the law because of it. I don't know whether that's occurred, but any president who does such a thing simply needs to be impeached, because they really are violating the constitution.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

"Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dob...y26/index.html

Tell us SWG. Do you even know what that means?

I have my doubts.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by itai195

You're right that signing statements themselves are not the problem, the problem is that the president is using them instead of vetoing bills he thinks are unconstitutional, which is his constitutional responsibility.

it's an either/or situation. bush's statements, in which he refers to how he plans to interpret, and therefore uphold the law, inserts a big "maybe" into the equation.

the constitution is very clear about this. he must make a decision not equivocate.

Some of Mr. Bush’s signing statements have become notorious, like the one in which he said he didn’t feel bound by the new law against torturing prisoners. Others were more obscure, like the one in which he said he would not follow a law forbidding the White House to censor or withhold scientific data requested by Congress.

it's the law of the land that torture is illegal. it was signed into law by the president. 70% of the p/l agrees. bush vowing that he plans to not follow the law is a dereliction of duty imo.

imagine a sheriff publicly proclaiming that he wasn't going to follow the law when it suited his purpose? would he be sheriff long?

(i'm not sure why bush is scared of the veto. in only a handful of cases in the history of the US, has a bill vetoed by a president been over-turned by the congress. all other times, changes were made to the bills that addressed the presidents' concerns before being signed into law.)

[Y3a]

Why didn't you care when Clinton LIED UNDER OATH, and remove him from office? He DID SWEAR to uphold the Constitution etc. Oh, that's right, swearing on the Bible only counts when you MEAN IT. It all dpends on the meaning of "is".

[itai195]

You seem to be conflating the Bible with the Constitution there, Y3a. Nice dodge of the issue overall, though: when in doubt bring up Clinton and equate lying about an affair with ______________ (fill in the blank with whatever the Bush scandal of the day is).

[Chuckit]

That red herring looks delicious, Y3a.