Political Crossfire Forums

[leftneckredwing]

John Galt wrote: micfranklin wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John Galt wrote: Doesn't say that the Supreme Court can have judicial review over Federal legislation either yet we aquieced to that. In any event, I don't think that signing statements mean anything.

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

Come now, you've got to admit, this is a little shady. He's not simply saying that he won't enforce the laws, which is the responsibility of the executive branch. He's saying that he has the right to change what the laws say based on "national security and constitutional grounds," which is bureaucratese for "whenever the f**k I feel like it."

That is an extremely dangerous type of power :twisted:

President Jackson is the one who started this. In vetoing the Bank, he explained, with a "signing statement" if you will, that he did so because he felt it violated the Constitution of the United States, irregardless of what other branches said. As President he is sworn to uphold and intpreet the Constitution himself.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/veto/ajveto01.htm

Of course, he vetoed it there, not signed it. But same basic Premise, the President can exercise his power in stoping unConstitutional things from happening. The Congress was originally required to meet at least once a year, for fear they wouldn't. The President is the one who is supposed to be running things -- but only things Congress approves of, although a much sleeker government would be here. And the Supreme Court was supposed to have no authority OVER the Congress in law... but alas, it's all gone to hell.

Like I said before the statement has no real value. Presidents have always been able to refuse to do X. Congress does things like appropriates money. Presidents do not have to spend it. Congress could appropriate billions of dollars for a new ball park or something idiotic like they like to spend billions of dollars on. President is well within his authority to refuse to spend the money on it, even if he signs the law. No one has argued otherwise, certianly not the President nor the Court.

A reason for veto, with veto being one of the legitimate options does not effect law not passed.

What bush is doing is very different. And can ultimatley be of far greater consequence. He has shown that he is more than willing to use whatever he regards as appropriate in the name of national security.

[Doctor_Gonzo]

Making a statement as to why the President either signs or vetoes a bill I believe is good responsible government as it's a direct communication to the people as to WHY the President did what he did. However, that's as far as it should go, and unless you COMPLETELY flush the Constitution down the toilet (as this Administration seems hell-bent on doing) that's as far as a signing statement CAN go. What Bush is doing by issuing statements as to which laws apply to him, which don't, and relieving certain people he "authorizes" to be above the law is nothing less than fascist dictatorialism. And people wonder why I've compared Bush to Hitler over the last six years. . .