It was good to see the American Bar Association speak out about President Bush’s signing statements, used more than 800 times to disavow all or parts of laws he signs. Of most concern were his statements taking exception to laws barring torture of detainees and requiring the White House to report to Congress on anti-terrorism efforts. In a report released Monday, the ABA called for Congress to exercise more oversight and for courts to review the president’s signing statements. If unchecked, the presidential use of signing statements “raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,” said ABA president Michael Greco.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
47 Comments
Here-here!
Signing statements? Never heard of it actually having any legal effect. I’ll educate myself about it to learn more on it.
They better watch out, King George might just decide to retroactively vetoe every bill if he can’t have his caveats added to them!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_go_co/signing_statements_1
WASHINGTON – A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight againstTop of Form 1???????Bottom of Form 1″http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=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.
The decider decided from the get go that he would not follow the law, but use his time to expand presidential power by ANY means necessary.Imagine that, the LEADER of the FREE world, not bound by the laws of the people.
The Bush administration has tried to stretch the dictatorial powers given to a President at war. But the “war on terror” does not meet the definition of a war, rather an attempt to stop violations of law. The so-called “war on terror” has no end unless the government declares so.
Hench a defacto dictatorial government is now in place, visa-vi, the signing statements.
Ed’s right. Except it should be “vis-a-vis”.
Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed………Abraham Lincoln
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Bloated government, huge deficits, Bridge-to-nowhere etc.? No problem! Keep the lapdog Congress happy by signing everything, then use signing statement to quietly rewrite the laws to your liking. The problems with vetoes is that they make headlines, and can be overidden, thus implicitly ceding back to Congress its normal lawmaking authority. Can’t have that!
But if it’s for the good of the country, you won’t see him engaged in creative reinterpretation. If it’s about increasing Executive power, it’s the norm.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
It goes along with the Gitmo tribunals and countless other examples of this bozo claiming unchecked, unilateral power; Executive = King. And–of course–”national security” is ALWAYS the reason. Like Nixon’s “executive privilege,” it is indeed a concept of some importance. But, also like Nixon, he’s full of shit.
The “war on terror” is akin to the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty.”
The Bush administration knows this { they’re lawyers are not stupid, unethical yes, but not stupid } so they’re deliberately exploiting the so-called “war on terror.”
should be “their”
So what agenda are they serving?
Ed, good to see you back, my friend.
World events seem to be playing your way, I’d say.
Rhonda and everyone else:Guess what?NO act of Congress can remove the Constitutional Power of the President.When the President thinks an Act of Congress could be an infringement on executive power, it is wise, for future clarification, if the President asserts Executive Authority on the signing statement.We have “Co-Equal” branches of government.All three branches have the power to check and balance the other two.Liberals believe in an all powerful judiciary.Those days are over.Signing statements by the President, along with “Article III Powers” of Congress (over the courts) being asserted more regularly, as well as a more conservative bench, will reign in the courts.
Okay, Paul.
Thanks for those wise words.
And I’m sure you’ll be saying the same thing when a Democratic president is running the show, right?
XXX, Sadly that’s true.
Just one problem there, Bushbot.
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the President granted the power to unilaterally ignore the wishes of Congress.
Nowhere.
Now go back to Limbaugh’s radio show and ask him how to respond to this. We await your next nonsensical post.
Defending Bush’s “unitary executive” policies has got to be very hard work. Pity the poor fool who tries to do that.
Just who exactly is this Paul Rozell anyway? Where in the hell does it say anywhere in the Constitution the by issuing a “signing statement” can the Executive Branch ignore laws enacted by the Legislative branch? It appears more and more that our country is moving toward a dictatorship.
How can a president who calls the Constitution a g-d piece of paper have Constitutional Power? That would make it an oxymoron, for certain. But then, look at the maximoron who’s doing it.
Long ago I was taught that the U.S. government was set up with checks and balances, so that no one branch can rule with impunity. It’s curious that Pauly thinks that CEO of the Executive Branch is free to ignore laws that HE determines, independently, somehow violate his powers. That is indistinguishable from monarchy.
Liberals don’t believe in an “all-powerful judiciary,” Pauly. The fact is when both the Legislative and Executive branches overstep their bounds, the Judicial branch is the only check on THEIR powers (it is also, BTW, the proper venue for Bush to have submitted his objections to the Congress’s supposed encroachment on his “inherent powers”).
It’s fascinating to see Unproll Paul declare his contempt for a fantasized “all-powerful judiciary” while at the same time uncritically supporting undemocratic government in the USA.
P.S. Hi Ed, welcome back!
Bush has been loading the S.C. for this kind of challenge. His Unitarist philosophy appointments will probably back the sack of shit.
Right now, the swing vote is Kennedy. If Stevens retires, there won’t be one. . .
The Constitution gives the President powers that Congress can not take away, under any circumstances.Yes, Congress can cut funds, yes Congress can impeach, but Congress can’t pass a law that allows Congress to pick all of the Generals in the military. Even if a President were to sign such a bill, no President would have to follow such an illegal “law.”A Signing Statement simply makes clear that the President agrees to the provisions of the law he is signing that WOULD NOT infringe on executive power.—-Remember the “line item veto” ?? The Supreme Court threw that out because Congress can NOT delegate its authority to the President, likewise the President’s authority can not be passed to the Courts or to Congress.(There is a way to fix this, just have the line item resubmitted for an up or down vote without amendment. The Courts would probably accept that.)—-As for Article III power, the Congress is increasing telling the Courts they have no jurisdiction in certain matters. That is a right of Congress. It only takes a simple majority in both houses and a Presidential signature.A fence on the Mexican border is being built, without lawsuits or federal court delays, because Congress told the Courts they had no Jurisdiction.—–The balance of power is changing, permanently, and I am happy about that.
Those in charge of that power are changing too! And pretty soon!
Having progressives in power with all this new executive power should be very good for society! Alas, conservatives won’t enjoy that too much!
Good!
Paul there is a more sensible way to control this administration. Bush has spread the executive power far beyond those that effect the “war on terror” to the very fabric of this country. He is able to do more damage to this country then any terrorist group or any country that would harm us.Thank you for reminding us of that more sensible way, to quote you:
“yes Congress can impeach”
Paul, you keep jumping up and down about the president authority but, curiously, you have not given any basis for these awesome which you would invest in one man.
Why, yes, I’m sure that’s what the Founders, who had fought a long, bloody war to throw off an autocratic leader, EXACTLY intended to do!.
|/sarcasm|
Simply repeating something ad naseum doesn’t it make it true, dude.
And Paul has already gone on record that if the next president is a Democrat, he will DEMAND that our guy get exactly the same powers that W. has chosen to exercise.
Spying on political enemies? VITAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY.
Payback for criticism against people like Joe Wilson?NOT A CRIME.
Signing statements that negate what he just signed.TOTALLY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.
Thanks for your fair-mindedness, Paul.
Bush and Israel have no idea what they’ve started………”no one can foresee what may happen and no regret will be of any use when the forbidden happens”
Abdullah Warns of Mideast War RiskArab News
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah receives Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at the Al-Baha airport on Tuesday. (SPA)JEDDAH, 26 July 2006 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah called yesterday for the international community to press for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, warning that the crisis could drag the whole region into a war with no foreseeable results.
“Patience cannot last forever and if the brutal Israeli military forces continue their killings and destruction, no one can foresee what may happen and no regret will be of any use when the forbidden happens,” said the Royal Court statement quoting the king.
“The Kingdom also warns everyone that if the peace option is dropped owing to Israeli arrogance there would remain nothing but the option of war, and Allah alone knows what the region would witness in a war that would not spare anyone,” said the statement, released by the Saudi Press Agency.
The statement continued: “The Arabs have earlier made public their strategic option for peace and submitted a fair and clear program involving the return of the occupied Arab territories for peace. However the world refused to respond because of the (Israeli) instigation.”
The statement once again appealed to the United Nations “and to the United States in particular” to strive for a cessation of violence.
The king highlighted his country’s efforts to win a cease-fire, such as sending Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal and National Security Council Secretary-General Prince Bandar “to meet the US president in Washington in order to convey to him the Kingdom’s view.”
The king’s stance on the Middle East crisis was lauded by people who said the time was right for diplomacy to succeed.
Meanwhile, the king paused his tour of Al-Baha region yesterday to meet there with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in order to discuss the crisis. The two leaders met at Al-Baha’s scenic Raghdan forest camp where the king hosted a lunch in Mubarak’s honor.
The two men discussed the developments in the Arab, Islamic and international arenas and ways to expand the existing cooperation between the two countries.
The king also announced yesterday aid and assistance to Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority totaling $1.75 billion, the Saudi Press Agency reported.
One billion dollars will go directly to Lebanon’s Central Bank to help stabilize the country’s economy while $500 million will be earmarked for reconstruction. The Palestinians will receive $250 million.
“The Kingdom has been shouldering the responsibility put on it by religious and national obligations toward the region to avert the consequences of the happenings in Lebanon and occupied Palestine,” said the royal statement. “The Kingdom has also strived since the first moment to stop the hostilities and has acted in various ways to persuade the international community to force Israel to a cease-fire,” it added.
The royal statement also alluded to the public donation campaign that kicks off today to raise money to increase aid to Lebanon and the Palestinians.
In London, Prince Saud said after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “I think we both agree that the real solution is to have Lebanon regain its sovereignty and territorial integrity,”
“For that to happen there must be a first step, which is a cease-fire to stop the bombing that is happening.”
Asked what he thought of the British support for the US position on the conflict, he replied: “I hope the support will be for the Lebanese people. This is what we are urging. The crisis is Lebanon’s crisis, not Britain’s or Saudi Arabia’s or America’s crisis.”
Later Prince Saud and Prince Bandar met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to convey a message from King Abdullah on the present crisis.
President Putin expressed his confidence that the efforts by the Kingdom, Russia and other parties will find an acceptable solution to the crisis.
London-based Middle East analyst Mushtak Parker told Arab News yesterday that the king’s statement would add to the pressure on Israel to stop hostilities.
“King Abdullah rightly felt that if Israel’s barbaric aggression was allowed to go on like this, the region would sleepwalk into a disaster,” said Parker. “What Israel is doing is reprehensible and there is no moral equivalent for it. You cannot kill an entire family and tell its only surviving member, ‘Sorry, your family has been sacrificed to the war on terror.’ The Israeli stance was hollow right from the start.”
Parker also said that Israel’s condition of not talking to Hezbollah was “idiotic”.
“There have been instances where warring parties have talked to each other in search of a solution,” he said. “For example, West Germany was talking to East Germany at the height of the Cold War. Even today, the international community and South Korea are engaged in negotiations with the North Koreans. Basically, Israel is not interested in any peace.”
Parker said the king’s generous donation would bolster reconstruction once a cease-fire is in place. “The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and other institutions should immediately come forward to help in this reconstruction effort,” he said.
Dr. Khaled Batarfi, managing editor of Al-Madinah Arabic daily, said he was happy at the position taken by the king.
“I liked what he said, especially the part about Arabs no longer accepting to be on the receiving end while Israel lives in prosperity,” said Dr. Batarfi. “The king rightly mentioned that the flames of war that Israel ignited will eventually blow back and consume it.”
Samar Fatany, a Jeddah-based radio journalist, said she was not surprised by the king’s statement. “This is what we expected from our beloved king,” she said. “We were confident that he would not continue to be silent about what was happening in Lebanon. I am sure the outside world now knows Saudi Arabia’s firm stance on the conflict. Israeli barbarity should stop.”
Fatany said Saudi Arabia generally is guarded in its response to any crisis. “This is just the Saudi way of diplomacy,” said Fatany. “It should in no way create doubts in anyone’s mind about the Kingdom’s resolve in this matter. We are with Lebanon.”
In Beirut, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said that the deposit of $1 billion with the central bank was to “strengthen reserves in a bid to back the government’s efforts to consolidate the stability of the national currency.”
He said Saudi individuals and institutions, both public and private, had also made significant donations.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=85870&d=26&m=7&y=2006
Clinton Did obtain the FBI files of his enemies, I dont recall Bush being accused of such a thing.Also, Rage, the Constitution clearly specifies duties for each branch.No legislation can change the constituitional delegation and division of powers.Since the Courts routinely take a look at “congressional intent” — meaning the debates in Congress — when trying to determine exactly what some archaine law might mean, it is only natural that the Courts might also want to know the Presidents INTENT when signing the bill into law.You libs have no argument here.This is a non issue.
So we have some form of an elected monarchy? I don’t think the founding fathers had that in mind!
Wow Paulie, you mean there’s something left that Georgie ain’t been accused of?
No wonder you like him so much.There’s still an immoral/illegal act he hasn’t done yet.
You neo-cons have no argument here.
“Also, Rage, the Constitution clearly specifies duties for each branch.”
Uhm, right, Paul, but you seem allergic to specifics. MY reading of the Constitution doesn’t support what you’re saying.
Is it so tough to cite the appropriate sections, if you think it’s so cut-and-dried?
Here, I’ll even help.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii
Knock yerself out.
BTW, Paul, you just undermined your own argument. When there is a conflict between administrative interpretion and legislative intent, legislative intent invariably wins.
At least until you succeed in completely stacking the courts with monarchists.
I thought they wanted to DESTROY the courts, not control them?
Now they just want to control them?
No wonder they call it republican spin. It must make them dizzy too.
A few court decisions the r’s disagree with = all court decisions are bad.
Bad decisions = destroy the court
destroy the court = king george
Got it!
The President does not even have the power to limit Presidential authority granted by the Constitution. By using “signing statements” the President might actually be protecting some legislation from being ruled “unconstitutional” since the signing statement clearly spells out that the President reserves constitutional authority over the matter.The “signing statements” dont ever say “I dont want to enforce this” they instead make clear that there are circumstances where Constitutional powers override legislation.If I see smoke comming out of the window of a house, I am free to kick the front door in and attempt to rescue those inside. I will not be charged for vandalism or breaking and entering. I also can’t get sued, in Kansas, for rendering First Aid.Likewise, circumstances may arrise where legislation takes a back seat the the Constitutional Power of a President.To use the “torture” arguement, for instance: If someone planted an atomic bomb in the middle of Washington D.C. and we knew we had the guy in custody who planted it, I would not be opposed to torture to discover the location of that bomb.I believe that any President worth his weight would pardon anyone who was able to successfully obtain that information, which would save millions of lives.Of course, if that “torturer” was not successful, he or she might die anyway, from the nuclear blast. To me, that assures that torture will be considered in such an instance.The signing statement itself simply reminds Congress and the Courts and future Administrations that there are Constitutional exceptions to legislated law.The Constitution TRUMPS Congress and the Courts.By the way, The President, as well as Congress, do not swear an oath to the Supreme Court.Instead, elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution.The Courts have made several mistakes, Dred Scott perhaps being one we can all agree upon.The President is asserting his Constitutional Powers through signing statements. The President has a duty to assert his authority.The Congress is asserting its right to check and balance the Courts through Article III jurisdiction limitations.All of this is good.
“The Constitution TRUMPS Congress and the Courts.”
Uh oh, look out, the Constitution’s on the loose! Mere human beings don’t stand a chance!
Well, silly me, Paul, for thinking an inaminate object can’t run the country. Please inform the Constitution it needs to wake up and assume its duties, because otherwise your scheme hands all those powers to the Executive branch.
And you still haven’t answered my question. Where in the Constitution is there any support for what you’re saying? I even gave you a handy link to Article II.
I suspect such issues are beyond your comprehension.
Rage;The burden of proof is on you.Show me where the Constitution states that the President CAN’T assert Constitutional exceptions in his signing statements?By the way, even if Bush quit using the signing statements to assert his authority, his Constitutional authority over National Security issues would still trump any legislation.
The Constitution says nothing about political parties, abortion, gay marriage or any number of things.I find the right of the President to assert his authority in signing statement in “emanations from the penumbra” lol.
I guess that’s the closest thing to an answer I’m going to get.By the way, here’s the Griswold case (ya know, the one you were blindly kinda-sorta citing to desperately excuse your own incompetence?):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479
Agree or disagree, Douglas makes a pretty good argument. You’ve yet to do anything even close; All you do is make bald assertions. When you’re called on them, you’re consistenly evasive; you bob, duck, weave, and misdirect.
Interesting how the relevant provisions of a Constitution that “clearly specifies duties for each branch” suddenly became too unclear to specify.
This is no longer even entertaining. Yawn!
Rage,You still haven’t proven that Bush is not allowed to make Constitutional points and reservations through signing statements.You can quote and paste and reference all you want, but you are claiming that Bush is doing something wrong.You have not proven your case at all.What exactly is the President doing that you are convinced he does not have the power to do?You yourself are being rather vague.You have yet to quote a signing statement and tell me what is illegal or even questionable about that statement.I would say that you, Sir, are the evasive one here.
Paul,From the link that Rhonda posted (and you apparently didn’t read):”While the White House has asserted that it only expresses reservations, the ABA has cited examples in which Bush has indicated his intentions not to follow provisions in: A bill requiring a report to Congress on the use of the USA Patriot Act to secretly search homes or seize private papers. The ‘McCain amendment’ forbidding any U.S. official from torturing a prisoner. While the administration insists it does not condone torture, the president’s signing statement in December reserved the right to waive the torture ban if harsh interrogation might advance anti-terrorism efforts. The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 requiring regular reports to Congress. The signing statement called that requirement ‘advisory’ {An ‘advisory law??!! –Rage} and asserted that it ‘would be construed in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to withhold information’ that could impair foreign relations or national security if released.”
The Boston Globe story (to which I linked) gave more specific examples of the wording of these statements. There is absolutely no question that they are using these statements to try to override and/or ignore laws they don’t like.
It may shock you to think about this, but the Legislative branch writes the laws, and the Executive branch is responsible for executive them.
Oh, and by the way:From Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution:”. . .he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . .”
To which I also linked. . .
And by the way, when you claim “constitutional authority” for a president’s actions, asked how the Constitution authorizes it is as about as basic and obvious a question as it gets.
Ah, long tiring day. Feel free to make fun of the typos. :)
Rage- Well said and scary! I don’t have much use for liars or lawyers, or however it’s spelled, but in this case, I would have far more faith in the ABA than Bush and his band of backroom thugs!! Our Democracy is at grave risk.
Thanks, G!
““raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,””
Oh, brother. No exaggeration or nothin’. I say let the courts decide. All this whining about nothing.
“Well said and scary!”This about sums you people up pretty well. Bush- scary! Global Warming – scary! Guns – scary. Terrorists – our friends.