A Question about the Presidential Signature. . . .

[Bird of Prey]

I caught part of NPR the other day. It was referring to a "signature" caveat when a president signs a bill. Bush has used it on almost every bill he has signed. It gives him some kind of technical personal immunity to following the law that he signs because he signs it with a notation? I missed the proper term for it, and it's the first time I've ever heard of it. But it essentially - or technically - exempts him from implementing the law if he sees fit.

For example, if he signs a bill declaring torture illegal, he might sign it with a phrase like "unless it conflicts with the Presidential duties as Commander and Chief. . . ."

What's interesting is that both Obama and Clinton said they would use it, but McCain said he would not.

Because I don't know the right question to ask exactly, I can't seem to find the answer. So I thought I'd take the question to the legally astute right here, and as always, I'm interested in opinions.

[Julie Worth]

I caught part of NPR the other day. It was referring to a "signature" caveat when a president signs a bill...

This sounds unconstitutional. With a long enough caveat (signing statement), the president could change the meaning of the bill entirely. He'd be usurping the powers of the legislative branch. Not that he doesn't already.

[Bird of Prey]

This sounds unconstitutional. With a long enough caveat (signing statement), the president could change the meaning of the bill entirely. He'd be usurping the powers of the legislative branch. Not that he doesn't already.

I would agree, Julie, and obviously McCain thinks it's underhanded, another reason why I like him. But the real issue points to presidential power well beyond what common sense would grant.

[Julie Worth]

Here's a link (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/) to some recent signing statements.

For example, in signing a law banning torture, Bush wrote, "The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks."

So it's the law unless the president decides it isn't, and he can do whatever he wants as long as he says the magic words: will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

For another one, capping the number of US troops allowed in Colombia, Bush said, "Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law 'as advisory in nature'."

So this is no law at all. Bush has effectively vetoed it, but Congress has no recourse.

These two aren't that bad, in my opinion, but the president shouldn't be allowed to do this, as it undermines the separation of powers. If he doesn't agree with a bill he should veto it; if he thinks Congress is infringing on his turf, he should take it to the Supremes.

[Bird of Prey]

Here's a link (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/) to some recent signing statements.

For example, in signing a law banning torture, Bush wrote, "The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks."

So it's the law unless the president decides it isn't, and he can do whatever he wants as long as he says the magic words: will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

For another one, capping the number of US troops allowed in Colombia, Bush said, "Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law 'as advisory in nature'."

So this is no law at all. Bush has effectively vetoed it, but Congress has no recourse.

These two aren't that bad, in my opinion, but the president shouldn't be allowed to do this, as it undermines the separation of powers. If he doesn't agree with a bill he should veto it; if he thinks Congress is infringing on his turf, he should take it to the Supremes.


Exactly, Julie!! Signing statements!! I'm embarrassed to admit that I knew little of "signing statements" until NPR brought it up. It's disgraceful, meaning that they provide a technical out for the president. And Bush has made ample use of them.

I was really impressed that McCain declared he would not use them.

[robeiae]

"Signing statements" are not legal instruments. They provide no legal standing for ignoring a law Congress has passed and the President has signed. So, they do not really represent an "out" as it were. All they represent is the Presidents opinion on a given law.

If the President ignores a law--per a "signing statement" or anything else--he can be held accountable for doing so.

It's much ado about nothing.

[Perks]

Why can't he just write an op-ed in the Washington Times then?

[robeiae]

Why can't he just write an op-ed in the Washington Times then?
Like most Presidents, he's an egomaniac and wants to have the last word?

[InfinityGoddess]

Actually, the concept of signing statements isn't new. Past presidents have used them, though not to undermine Congress, but to make a statement about any objections to the law being signed. Bush II has simply taken it to another level by actually usurping Congress' legislative powers.

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe was the guy who initially broke this story, and he's been making the rounds on Air America, Democracy Now!, and MSNBC. So it's been out there a while now.

[robeiae]

Bush II has simply taken it to another level by actually usurping Congress' legislative powers.That's simply not true.

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe was the guy who initially broke this story, and he's been making the rounds on Air America, Democracy Now!, and MSNBC. So it's been out there a while now.
Yes, it's been discussed on these boards before (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36366), as well. But Savage didn't "break" a story, he manufactured one. Incredibly shoddy journalism, imo.

[InfinityGoddess]

Yes, it's been discussed on these boards before (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36366), as well. But Savage didn't "break" a story, he manufactured one. Incredibly shoddy journalism, imo.

He didn't "manufacture" a story. He actually did some investigative reporting, which is a foreign concept to journalists in Big Media these days for the most part.

[robeiae]

He didn't "manufacture" a story. He actually did some investigative reporting, which is a foreign concept to journalists in Big Media these days for the most part.
He intentionally or lazily used misleading figures in his story. That's hardly good journalism in my book, one way or the other.

And again, there's nothing to these signing statements from a legal standpoint. The Supreme Court has already made that determination. So, it's still much ado about nothing. Savage and his Air America ilk are just uninformed or they are being intentionally misleading with regard to this subject.

And you're taking them at their word, as opposed to "thinking critically" about the issue.

You opined that Bush II took it "to another level by actually usurping Congress' legislative powers." That's patently false. Bush has noted in some of these statements--as past Presidents have--that he feels there is a problem with regard to Constitutionality. But that's not "usurping legislative powers," it's merely noting an intention with regard to future challenges of the the given provision. FDR issued a signing statement on a bill in which he declared that one provision was unconstitutional and he would not enforce it. And in the end, the Supreme Court backed him up on that. But his signing statement did not amount to usurpation of power, even though he said he would not enforce the law and would support--through the AG--any challenges to the law. Here's that story and some more info (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.html).

[InfinityGoddess]

He intentionally or lazily used misleading figures in his story. That's hardly good journalism in my book, one way or the other.

And again, there's nothing to these signing statements from a legal standpoint. The Supreme Court has already made that determination. So, it's still much ado about nothing. Savage and his Air America ilk are just uninformed or they are being intentionally misleading with regard to this subject.


It is much ado about everything when Bush thinks he can just ignore the will of Congress.

Savage did not do any such thing and he's from the Boston Globe. Not Air America. He did the rounds on that station, but is not a part of it.

[Williebee]

An interesting discourse. Thanks to you all. In following the links it would seem that the President is, in fact, attempting to create caveats in the laws he is signing. Perhaps not "usurping the powers of the legislative branch", but at least attempting to. Whether the courts allow him to get away with it is another story. Suddenly, all these past judicial appointments, and attempted appointments, become SO important.

[Bird of Prey]

An interesting discourse. Thanks to you all. In following the links it would seem that the President is, in fact, attempting to create caveats in the laws he is signing. Perhaps not "usurping the powers of the legislative branch", but at least attempting to. Whether the courts allow him to get away with it is another story. Suddenly, all these past judicial appointments, and attempted appointments, become SO important.


Beautiful post and absolutely on target.

[InfinityGoddess]

An interesting discourse. Thanks to you all. In following the links it would seem that the President is, in fact, attempting to create caveats in the laws he is signing. Perhaps not "usurping the powers of the legislative branch", but at least attempting to. Whether the courts allow him to get away with it is another story. Suddenly, all these past judicial appointments, and attempted appointments, become SO important.

Yeah. I've been wondering why my fellow liberals don't hit on this very point; the appointment of judges and who appoints them is very important. They are the firewall to injustice. You don't have the right people in, that firewall isn't there.

Conservatives, at the very least, have long since figured this out. Hence why they want so many of their judges on the bench.

[robeiae]

An interesting discourse. Thanks to you all. In following the links it would seem that the President is, in fact, attempting to create caveats in the laws he is signing. Perhaps not "usurping the powers of the legislative branch", but at least attempting to. Whether the courts allow him to get away with it is another story. Suddenly, all these past judicial appointments, and attempted appointments, become SO important.
No, that's not what is happening. The signing statements have zero legal impact. Zero. I'm not sure why people think anything different, in this regard. The Supreme Court has already noted this. All the signing statements represent is opinion, in one fashion or another. Not all signing statements are even critical of a given bill; some are actually complimentary. But of those that are critical, all they demonstrate is what the President thinks about the bill or some aspect of it. All they can possible represent is what actions a President may take if the provision criticized comes before the Court or requires action that he/she believes would violate the Constitution. In essence, such signing statements amount to "fair warning," nothing more. Anyone saying different is either lying or doesn't have a clue.

[robeiae]

It is much ado about everything when Bush thinks he can just ignore the will of Congress.Again, that's not true. Put something on the table, here. So far you're just regurgitating what you've heard, obviously. Explain to me exactly why signing statements are something other that what I've said. Explain to me why the SCOTUS opinions are no longer relevant. Explain to me something.
Savage did not do any such thing and he's from the Boston Globe. Not Air America. He did the rounds on that station, but is not a part of it.
Christ, I know where he's from. I linked to his article in the Boston Globe in the earlier thread on this subject. You noted that the Air America crowd was sucking down his swill, I merely reaffirmed that. And he did manipulate the numbers. I showed that in the very same earlier thread. Have you read his article? Come on, think it through and try to see what you're swallowing. And again, bring something to the table, here.

[Bird of Prey]

No, that's not what is happening. The signing statements have zero legal impact. Zero. . . .


Not according to NPR. And I wish I could attest to it all the ramifications, but all I heard were snippets, as I was on errands. Regardless, Rob, it's not as simple as just a statement. I'll research it again.

[InfinityGoddess]

Again, that's not true. Put something on the table, here. So far you're just regurgitating what you've heard, obviously. Explain to me exactly why signing statements are something other that what I've said. Explain to me why the SCOTUS opinions are no longer relevant. Explain to me something.

Dick Cheney believes in the Unitary Executive (and has gotten Bush to go along with it). Do you think he honestly cares what Congress or the SCOTUS thinks? I sure don't think so.

Christ, I know where he's from. I linked to his article in the Boston Globe in the earlier thread on this subject. You noted that the Air America crowd was sucking down his swill, I merely reaffirmed that. And he did manipulate the numbers. I showed that in the very same earlier thread. Have you read his article? Come on, think it through and try to see what you're swallowing. And again, bring something to the table, here.

All I see is that you're desperately trying to win an argument where there should be none.

[robeiae]

Not according to NPR. And I wish I could attest to it all the ramifications, but all I heard were snippets, as I was on errands. Regardless, Rob, it's not as simple as just a statement. I'll research it again.
Look BoP, I'll explain it once more. It's simply a non-issue. Come to grips with that fact, no matter what you hear on NPR or elsewhere.

Here's how it works: Congress passes a bill. If the President signs that bill, it is a law. Now, bills can obviously have many parts/provisions. Sometimes, the President may disagree with a particular part/provision in a bill. But because he wants the rest of the bill, he signs it anyway. Now, he can make a signing statement essentially noting that there were parts he didn't like. That's it. Such statements mean diddly. However, other times the President may believe or claim to believe--whether you like it or not--that a part/provision in a bill is expressly unconstitutional. Since the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, he cannot--theoretically--enforce a law that he believes to be unconstitutional. So, a signing statement with regard to constitutionality is pointing this out to Congress. It's saying "look, I signed the bill, most of it's okay, but I think this part is unconstitutional so if it is challenged in court, I will have the AG oppose it, not support it, and if I am required to act by this part, I will not do so." That's it. It's a warning.

What you and others are seemingly not grasping is that the signing statements carry absolutely no weight, legally. Really, they are superfluous. If the President issued no signing statement about a given provision of a given bill, he could still act exactly as if he did. To use the FDR example again, if FDR hadn't made his signing statement, he could still have refused to enforce the provision that he found unconstitutional. He could still have backed the challenge in court to that provision with the AG. The signing statement changes nothing. It is not legislative in any way and it is not actionable in any way. It's just an opinion and--sometimes--a warning.

No doubt, it makes good fodder for political discussions, but it's just that: fodder. No substance.

So you research it again. I gave a link with pretty much every relevant paper, decision, bill, and article on the subject. Read them all. See what you find.

[robeiae]

All I see is that you're desperately trying to win an argument where there should be none.
I'm not desperate, at all. I am appalled, however, at the complete lack of reason on display, here. Again, say something meaningful. You haven't said jack. You're just making unsupported assertions. Back it up, if you can.

This is yet another example of you not really knowing the subject you are expounding on. I've given several bits of analysis on what signing statements are and how they work. Show me where I'm wrong and why I'm wrong. Can you do that? I notice you've just ignored the evidentiary parts of my posts. Look at this one again:


You opined that Bush II took it "to another level by actually usurping Congress' legislative powers." That's patently false. Bush has noted in some of these statements--as past Presidents have--that he feels there is a problem with regard to Constitutionality. But that's not "usurping legislative powers," it's merely noting an intention with regard to future challenges of the the given provision. FDR issued a signing statement on a bill in which he declared that one provision was unconstitutional and he would not enforce it. And in the end, the Supreme Court backed him up on that. But his signing statement did not amount to usurpation of power, even though he said he would not enforce the law and would support--through the AG--any challenges to the law.
Nothing to say about that? Were you even aware of this before I posted it? I mean, it undoes your claim about Bush flat out. He's done nothing that goes beyond what FDR did, here. So, explain why FDR was in the wrong. Explain how he usurped legislative authority. Then explain why Bush has done even worse with signing statements. I'll need examples , of course.

As to Savage's article, it's already dissected (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=676877&postcount=3) in the previous thread. If you can't answer that, I see no need to go through it again.

[InfinityGoddess]

Look BoP, I'll explain it once more. It's simply a non-issue. Come to grips with that fact, no matter what you hear on NPR or elsewhere.

Here's how it works: Congress passes a bill. If the President signs that bill, it is a law. Now, bills can obviously have many parts/provisions. Sometimes, the President may disagree with a particular part/provision in a bill. But because he wants the rest of the bill, he signs it anyway. Now, he can make a signing statement essentially noting that there were parts he didn't like. That's it. Such statements mean diddly. However, other times the President may believe or claim to believe--whether you like it or not--that a part/provision in a bill is expressly unconstitutional. Since the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, he cannot--theoretically--enforce a law that he believes to be unconstitutional. So, a signing statement with regard to constitutionality is pointing this out to Congress. It's saying "look, I signed the bill, most of it's okay, but I think this part is unconstitutional so if it is challenged in court, I will have the AG oppose it, not support it, and if I am required to act by this part, I will not do so." That's it. It's a warning.

What you and others are seemingly not grasping is that the signing statements carry absolutely no weight, legally. Really, they are superfluous. If the President issued no signing statement about a given provision of a given bill, he could still act exactly as if he did. To use the FDR example again, if FDR hadn't made his signing statement, he could still have refused to enforce the provision that he found unconstitutional. He could still have backed the challenge in court to that provision with the AG. The signing statement changes nothing. It is not legislative in any way and it is not actionable in any way. It's just an opinion and--sometimes--a warning.

No doubt, it makes good fodder for political discussions, but it's just that: fodder. No substance.

So you research it again. I gave a link with pretty much every relevant paper, decision, bill, and article on the subject. Read them all. See what you find.

We get the logistics, Rob. But the problem is, we're dealing with Bush here. Not any other President who has made signing statements.

The Bush signing statements literally go beyond the pale in terms of what the Executive can and cannot do when signing a bill into law. In Bushworld, he's literally attempting to rewrite the law so that it doesn't apply to him (or so he thinks). Court cases in the past may have ruled that the signing statements mean nothing, but they still haven't seen any cases with this one where he's literally trying to subvert Congress. Signing statements in the past just simply didn't do this. They were merely commentary.

[jst5150]

Signing statements are the impotent version of the line-item veto. That in the ballpark?

[MattW]

Since the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, he cannot--theoretically--enforce a law that he believes to be unconstitutional. So, a signing statement with regard to constitutionality is pointing this out to Congress. It's saying "look, I signed the bill, most of it's okay, but I think this part is unconstitutional so if it is challenged in court, I will have the AG oppose it, not support it, and if I am required to act by this part, I will not do so." That's it. It's a warning.
That was my interpretation of the signing statements as well. It's not the purview of the president to judge constitutionality, but he sure doesn't have to keep quiet about it.

Even more so if the laws being passed are beyond the reach of what the legislative branch is granted (eg - limiting the powers of the executive branch without an Amendment).

[robeiae]

Signing statements are the impotent version of the line-item veto. That in the ballpark?That IS the ballpark. And if a President tried to act on the basis of a signing statement alone, he would lose before the Court, which has already affirmed the unconstitutionality of a line-item veto.

[robeiae]

Even more so if the laws being passed are beyond the reach of what the legislative branch is granted (eg - limiting the powers of the executive branch without an Amendment).
That's right. And the dirty little secret here is that it could be signing statements are way up--since Reagan--because Congress is pushing the envelope farther and farther. Unfortunately, our astute journalists out there only like sexy stories with a clear villain.

[robeiae]

The Bush signing statements literally go beyond the pale in terms of what the Executive can and cannot do when signing a bill into law. In Bushworld, he's literally attempting to rewrite the law so that it doesn't apply to him (or so he thinks). Court cases in the past may have ruled that the signing statements mean nothing, but they still haven't seen any cases with this one where he's literally trying to subvert Congress. Signing statements in the past just simply didn't do this. They were merely commentary.
Then make the case. Present specific signing statements that do this and go beyond any signing statements made by past Presidents. Why can't you do this? Why? Again, you're not bringing anything to the table, here.

And again, I quite certain you are completely wrong--which is why you can't really make the case.

[InfinityGoddess]

Then make the case. Present specific signing statements that do this and go beyond any signing statements made by past Presidents. Why can't you do this? Why? Again, you're not bringing anything to the table, here.

And again, I quite certain you are completely wrong--which is why you can't really make the case.

The only reason why I've not been able to come up with links is because I just finished four pages of a graphic novel-in-progress and two regular weekly comic strips all afternoon.

But since you asked so nicely:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/politics/main1755263.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700145.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/54543/

And if you want to be more specific:

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Signing%20Statement%20Chart%20-%20Neil%20Kinkopf%20and%20Peter%20Shane.pdf

Have fun reading.

[robeiae]

The only reason why I've not been able to come up with links is because I just finished four pages of a graphic novel-in-progress and two regular weekly comic strips all afternoon.

But since you asked so nicely:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Weak. No meat, no specific examples with regard to specific signing statements. And he assumes legislative authority to a very high degree over the executive as a matter of course. However, note how his list of signing statements authored by Bush conflicts with Savage's numbers--or at least sets them straight, with regard to "signing statements" versus "signing statement challenges." And he neglects to offer analysis with regard to how Bush's signing statements--recognized as non-legal, non-binding instruments by the Supreme Court--could possible have any merit the moment after Bush's term ends. That's an animal we haven't even touched on, yet. In short, they have no meaning whatsoever for the next Chief Executive and his/her admin.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp
An editorial, and poorly argued/written. Note the glaring mistake in it: George W. Bush has added more than 800 “signing statements” to new laws since he took office.

That is positively incorrect. Bush has not added 800 signing statements since he took office. Look at the previous article, which puts the total at 107 through 2004. Do you see the problem, here?

Beyond that, the article once again offers nothing specific, just supposition and rhetoric. Equally weak.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/politics/main1755263.shtml

Really, there's nothing new here at all. And again, the numbers are wrong, per the last article. What did you do? Google "signing statements"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700145.html

Apparently so (with regard to googling). This is pretty much the same story with the same flaws.


http://www.alternet.org/story/54543/

Better, but still, the analysis is flawed. If Bush failed to take some action required by law, why wasn't it challenged in court? Of course, the meat of the example used here reflects an issue on the extent of Congressional authority over Presidential actions, with regard to reporting, only. That's a pretty flimsy issue to hang the entire argument on. But hey, if it's all there is...


And if you want to be more specific:

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Signing%20Statement%20Chart%20-%20Neil%20Kinkopf%20and%20Peter%20Shane.pdf

That's a list of signing statements, not an argument for or against them, or an analysis of such. You should be the one reading this, in order to justify your position--which you have yet to do. Giving me googled links is not an argument and is not analysis. I want to see you back up your claims re signing statements, not pass the buck to others. Again, let's see you lay it out. Show me exactly why what I have said is incorrect. Show me exactly why Bush's signing statements--any of them--are something other than merely commentary. Again, the statements carry no weight, no power. Any actions he has taken, he could have taken--with or without the signing statements. They carry no legal authority. If you believe otherwise, make the case.

[InfinityGoddess]

Again, the statements carry no weight, no power. Any actions he has taken, he could have taken--with or without the signing statements. They carry no legal authority. If you believe otherwise, make the case.

No one's arguing you on that point. My point is that Bush thinks they do. And they've yet to be challenged in court, those Bush signing statements.

[robeiae]

No one's arguing you on that point. My point is that Bush thinks they do. And they've yet to be challenged in court, those Bush signing statements.
In less than a year, it won't matter what Bush thinks. And again, if the signing statements carry no weight, why do you care what Bush thinks about them? His actions are not legally dependent on them, so what do they mean? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. They just represent a convenient avenue of attack for his opponents, since the rank and file is easily fed nonsense.

[InfinityGoddess]

In less than a year, it won't matter what Bush thinks. And again, if the signing statements carry no weight, why do you care what Bush thinks about them? His actions are not legally dependent on them, so what do they mean? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. They just represent a convenient avenue of attack for his opponents, since the rank and file is easily fed nonsense.

I care very much when a President thinks he's above the law. It's reminiscent of the Nixonian belief "when the President does it, it's not illegal" and then taking it to a whole new level.

[Monkey]

I'm sorry, Robeiae, but there IS a big problem with the way these signing statements are being seen as opposed to the signing statements of the past.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/19/us_agencies_disobey_6_laws_that_president_challeng ed/

This article shows that out of ten randomly chosen laws that Bush made signing statements on, SIX were being acted upon in accordance with the signing statement and NOT in accordance with the actual law.

More than half in a random sample.

No, it isn't the way it's supposed to be. Bush's signing statements should not be able to overturn or even significantly alter the bill that they are attached to.

But they are, and therein lies the problem.

[robeiae]

I'm sorry, Robeiae, but there IS a big problem with the way these signing statements are being seen as opposed to the signing statements of the past.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/19/us_agencies_disobey_6_laws_that_president_challeng ed/

This article shows that out of ten randomly chosen laws that Bush made signing statements on, SIX were being acted upon in accordance with the signing statement and NOT in accordance with the actual law.

More than half in a random sample.

No, it isn't the way it's supposed to be. Bush's signing statements should not be able to overturn or even significantly alter the bill that they are attached to.

But they are, and therein lies the problem.Don't be sorry.

But the fact remains that signing statements are not legal instruments. Savage--the author of the article you cited--gets it wrong:
A signing statement is a legal document filed in the Federal Register the day a president signs a bill into law. It instructs the executive branch about how to implement the new statutes the bill creates, and sometimes it states that certain provisions are unconstitutional and need not be enforced as written.That's simply incorrect. Again, signing statements are not legal instruments. To whit (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.html):Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html) as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement.
Again, the point here is that the Executive is not empowered in any way by signing statements. The example in the article--about border patrol relocation--represents an issue of constitutionality. Bush has a duty to not enforce laws that he deems are unconstitutional. Clearly, he views this one provision as such. It doesn't matter how he instructs executive agencies in this regard. The signing statement is as I have said: a warning. And in this case, it is a warning that Bush followed through on.

If you have a problem with Bush's assumption of the range of executive authority, that's fine. There is plenty to debate over. But viewing signing statements as something that they are not is pointless. And again, what Bush has done here is really no different than what FDR did in 1943.

And again, there is still the question of the chicken and the egg. Everyone is presuming this is all a consequence of Bush. Yet signing statements have increased in use under every President since Reagan. Perhaps it is Congress that deserves the scrutiny. Perhaps Congress is continually overstepping its authority. Have you examined the meat of the signing statements that question constitutionality? Is Bush wrong simply because he is Bush, or is he wrong because of careful analysis?

[robeiae]

I care very much when a President thinks he's above the law. It's reminiscent of the Nixonian belief "when the President does it, it's not illegal" and then taking it to a whole new level.
That's fine. It's a valid concern, imo. But that concern doesn't change signing statements into something that they are not.

[Ian.Fraser]

People don't like to face up to the idea that the imagery of a functioning democracy, has disappeared from America.
The Patriot Act saw to it - not that those who passed it, read it in advance.

The President can do anything he wants. Congress is unable to prevent him from doing anything he wants. Naturally Congress is hoping no one points this simple fact out - that their 'job' is now irrelevant.
There are no legal checks and balances to power in America anymore.

'Habeas Corpus' is suspended (in other words, the State doesn't need evidence to lock up anyone they feel like) - something the Founders were very clear about, in the Constitution, given their experience of this very thing, from England.

Anyone can be declared an 'enemy combatant' on the say so of the President (and/or I think, those who he chooses to gives this power to) and can be disappeared for up to 3 years, without any legal rights or legal access.

The 'signing powers' that Bush is using, is a simple example of how utterly irrelevant Congress is, as they can pass whatever whiny laws they like, and Bush legally can ignore them.
He clearly has all the powers of any regular dictator, in any third world banana republic.

He has also 'pardoned' himself, and given himself and his administration immunity from potential war crime charges.

Given that just 5 (FIVE) companies control all US newspapers, TV, radio, and magazines - its not surprising there's such a conformity of 'avoidance' of the actual reality currently. There may seem to be a wide variety of competing sources of information, but in reality, it all comes from just five corporations.

No wonder Americans are treated to the insanity of 'debate' over the idea of water torture - let alone even tolerating the renaming of it, into some cutesy label like 'waterboarding'. (And no, the 'we have a ticking bomb and a suspect who won't talk' justification theory has never occurred in history - it only happens in TV shows).

I'd keep an eye on the so-called 'no fly lists' - which the State is assembling and adding to all the time, which includes anyone who happens to say anything against the Bush regime - from little old anti-war granny prayer groups, through to tenured professors at universities. I think the list(s) are in the area of 800 000 people thus far, who are considered to be 'subversives' in some way.

I'd also keep an eye on the ever increasing concentration camps which are and have been built, to house millions of humans, 'in the event of a sudden emergency'..
read 'Bush's Mysterious New Programs'
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

The sadly funny thing to me, is that people still have some absurd idea that America is running 'like it always did'. Watch this Naomi Wolf interview, where she details the 10 Steps to Fascism, which the US is in the final stages of achieving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0LvtQAQ6sc

[Joe270]

Given that just 5 (FIVE) companies control all US newspapers, TV, radio, and magazines - its not surprising there's such a conformity of 'avoidance' of the actual reality currently. There may seem to be a wide variety of competing sources of information, but in reality, it all comes from just five corporations.

This is incorrect.

http://www.freepress.net/issues/ownership

The past two decades have witnessed the number of major corporations that dominate television, movies, music, radio, cable, publishing and the Internet dwindle from 50 to less than two dozen, with much of the control concentrated in fewer than 10 massive conglomerates.

[Monkey]

Here is a very balanced look at signing statements.

The authors actually support signing statements and make a good argument on their behalf. However, they believe that refusing to enforce a law should only be done as a last resort and only when the law goes against the constitution, not when you just don't like it and haven't bothered to debate it.

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/2006/07/thanks_to_the_p.html

They believe that Savage is doing a disservice by placing so much attention on signing statements themselves and not looking at the reasoning and methods of the Bush signing statements. The article lists what they see as the actual problems with the Bush signing statements, which I will post but snip for brevity:


First, in this Administration nonenforcement appears to be a strategy of first resort, not last. <snip>

Second, in many cases this Administration’s signing statements do not plausibly reflect legislative intent.

<snip>

Third, the whole point of such signing statements—the reason that making them is actually a valuable practice (see above)—is that they make transparent the President’s intent to decline to enforce statutes in the manner contemplated by Congress. But President Bush’s statements for the most part do not serve this function. Many of the objections are written in such general and opaque terms, and with resort to vague assertions about an intent to “construe” the provisions in conformity with the Commander-in-Chief Clause, the “unitary executive,” etc., that it is impossible to know just what they mean in terms of how the Administration is implementing the statutes in question. <snip>

Moreover, the President is not telling Congress when he does refuse to enforce (or when he construes the statute in a manner that the legislature could not possibly have contemplated). A President may seek to enforce his own conception of the Constitution, even if it is a sharp break with the past. But when he does so, he is constitutionally obliged to do so in broad daylight, with adequate opportunity for the other branches and the public to understand the legal theory and the practice and to respond accordingly. Checks and balances can't possibly work if the revolution is occurring in secret, or if the Administration publicly insists that all is business as usual, that all statutes and treaties are being implemented as they always have been, while simultaneously "implementing" such statutes in a manner that comes as a great surprise to Congress and the public. Precisely in order to deal with these problems—to provide Congress the opportunity to evaluate, oversee, and check the President's nonenforcement—federal law already requires that such decisions be disclosed to Congress. <snip>

The final, and most important, problem with the practice in this Administration, as we emphasized above, is not the signing statements themselves, nor the simple fact that the President might be engaged in nonenforcement, but instead the substance of many of the Administration's constitutional objections: e.g., the extremely broad theories of the Commander-in-Chief Clause and the "unitary executive" that underlie many of the signing statements and other distorted statutory constructions.


And even if Savage had his terminology wrong, the fact that 6 out of 10 bills were effectively hamstringed when Bush signed them means that his signing statements are actually carrying a lot of legal weight--as opposed to just being a statement of the presidential opinion.

[Williebee]

"... if I am required to act by this part, I will not do so." Sounds an awful lot like "If it comes up, I will not obey this law." to me.

"Anyone saying different is either lying or doesn't have a clue."

That is both obtuse and uncalled for. But then, so's this:

"Anyone saying different is either lying or doesn't have a clue." You just described our VP and President, in turn. Valerie Plame, vanishing e-mail, the Halliburton contracts, the shrinking of the first amendment....

[robeiae]

That is both obtuse and uncalled for.It's accurate, however. What I said was: "In essence, such signing statements amount to "fair warning," nothing more. Anyone saying different is either lying or doesn't have a clue." And it's crystal clear that this is true. So, if people are going to claim that signing statements are legal documents--as Savage did--then they are either a) lying or b) don't have a clue. It's not rocket science. It's settled law. The Supreme Court has essentially ignored signing statements because they are not legal instruments. Never have been. Now, the Court did note FDR's objection to Section 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943 in his signing statement on that bill, when it found that section 304 was unconstitutional. But it was noted--rightly--as an opinion. Because that is all that it was.

You just described our VP and President, in turn. Valerie Plame, vanishing e-mail, the Halliburton contracts, the shrinking of the first amendment....I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Care to elaborate?

[robeiae]

And even if Savage had his terminology wrong, the fact that 6 out of 10 bills were effectively hamstringed when Bush signed them means that his signing statements are actually carrying a lot of legal weight--as opposed to just being a statement of the presidential opinion.No, they don't carry legal weight as signing statements, at all. However Bush's instructions to agencies of the executive branch carry a great deal of weight--because he is the one in charge. I think that's where the confusion must be, here. I'm not sure how to explain this any better. The signing statements are Presidential opinions. And they can also indicate the future intent of a President with regard to the bill they appear on. But the President doesn't need the signing statement to take the action that it indicates he will take. The signing statement is not a legal instrument.

[Monkey]

What I meant by "legal weight" is that the signing statements are allowing people to ignore both the letter and the spirit of (at least portions of) the laws they are attached to. They do this without legal consequences, whereas without the signing statements, there would be legal consequences...these are laws, after all.

Now, I know what you are about to say: the president can choose not to enforce certain elements of a law he sees as unconstitutional, and he can do so with or without a signing statement, which, on the surface, makes the statement seem to have no particular significance. But here I can quote my earlier source again:

A President may seek to enforce his own conception of the Constitution, even if it is a sharp break with the past. But when he does so, he is constitutionally obliged to do so in broad daylight, with adequate opportunity for the other branches and the public to understand the legal theory and the practice and to respond accordingly.
(bolding mine)

Bush is using the signing statements as a way of ignoring parts of bills he doesn't like, and the signing statements are fulfilling his obligation of letting the public know about his non-enforcement...but just barely. Yes, it puts his intentions out in the open, but no, there is not adequate opportunity for discussion of that intent.

And the bigger issues concerning his use of signing statements are listed in post #39.


My question--and this is an honest question that I really would like to know the answer to--is this:

When Bush is out of office, if people are still acting according to the signing statements as opposed to the laws to which they are attached, can they be prosecuted? It seems like the signing statements simply signal Bush's unwillingness to *enforce* the laws (or occasionally, to have them enforced on him), and therefore it would stand to reason that the next president could choose to go ahead and enforce the laws as written. Is this the case?

[robeiae]

Bush is using the signing statements as a way of ignoring parts of bills he doesn't like, and the signing statements are fulfilling his obligation of letting the public know about his non-enforcement...but just barely. Yes, it puts his intentions out in the open, but no, there is not adequate opportunity for discussion of that intent.But see, he's not "using" signing statements. They have no use. They have no legal power. They just indicate his intent or his opinion. They are not instruments.

Where do signing statements appear on the public record? On the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/index.html). The statements are not "on the books." They are not a part of the laws they are attached to.

My question--and this is an honest question that I really would like to know the answer to--is this:

When Bush is out of office, if people are still acting according to the signing statements as opposed to the laws to which they are attached, can they be prosecuted? It seems like the signing statements simply signal Bush's unwillingness to *enforce* the laws (or occasionally, to have them enforced on him), and therefore it would stand to reason that the next president could choose to go ahead and enforce the laws as written. Is this the case?The only people acting according to the signing statements are the ones that Bush--as chief executive--has instructed to do so. When Bush is out of office, the next President will be responsible for the manner in which he/she enforces the Law.

[Monkey]

The only people acting according to the signing statements are the ones that Bush--as chief executive--has instructed to do so. When Bush is out of office, the next President will be responsible for the manner in which he/she enforces the Law.

That's a comforting thought. :)