Political Crossfire Forums

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: Why would you not veto a law which is unconstitutional when it is your duty to do so?

BigStick:

Pray do tell where in the U.S. Constitution does any language appear mandating the president veto legislation submitted to him if he believes it is unconstitutional?

Quote: When the President submits his objections to Congress, he states the reasons why he vetoed the bill. He can state that it was because it was unconstitutional if that is indeed true. Many Presidents have done it, although the only objection which I have personally read was one written by James Madison when he was President.

President Bush is not asserting the law is unconstitutional with his signing statements. President Bush is simply asserting there may develop unforeseen events, occurrences, contexts, or instances in which this law may or may not become unconstitutional in any, all, or none of them and the bill is possibly unconstitutional only in regards to those events, occurrences, contexts, and instances. President Bush is not holding the opinion as to the date of signing the law is unconstitutional. So you are comparing apples to oranges in your quoted excerpt above.

Quote: Would it not be better to veto the law which is unconstitutional

Once again your assumption Bush is asserting the law is unconstitutional in the signing statement is erroneous.

Quote: also must ask, where in the Constitution does it authorize the President to do what you have described? To my knowledge, there are no exceptions in the text; the law is pretty clearly stated. The plainness of the text of the Constitution is one of its greatest attributes, in my opinion.

I absolutely agree. I am a firm textualist. However, there are two different arguments here as I understand them. The question is WHY is this unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional because with the signing statement he is invoking a power(s) he does not possess or because he cannot attach any such declaration to a bill when signing it into law? Which argument are you making?

I think Galt makes an excellent point. The signing statement is pointless simply because the President "can" already do everything he says in the statement. This is not to say those actions are legally permissible. However, the President can refuse to abide by a law, refuse to follow it, etcetera. As I said before, however, this does not mean his actions are legally correct and they may be challenged in court. The court may then determine his actions are permissible or they are not, assuming of course the matter is justiciable.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: Even when it comes to adhering to the Geneva Conventions and a Ban on Torture ?
This power is within the scope of Presidential powers?

Richard:

Where there is a conflict between a treaty provision and the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution wins. This is not to suggest the power to torture is within the textual scope of constitutional powers vested to the President. What I am asserting, however, is if such a power is said to exist in the Executive Branch as vested to the President by the text of the U.S. Constitution, then those treaty provisions cannot said to restrain the President in those areas.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: Even when it comes to adhering to the Geneva Conventions and a Ban on Torture ?
This power is within the scope of Presidential powers?

Richard:

Where there is a conflict between a treaty provision and the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution wins. This is not to suggest the power to torture is within the textual scope of constitutional powers vested to the President. What I am asserting, however, is if such a power is said to exist in the Executive Branch as vested to the President by the text of the U.S. Constitution, then those treaty provisions cannot said to restrain the President in those areas.

That is fully understood but, "if such a power is said to exist in the Executive Branch as vested to the President by the text of the U.S. Constitution" then the President must present evidence for his conclusion.

He can not simply make a declaration and say nobody can investigate whether his declaration has merit or not.

He must prove beyond a Constitutional doubt that what he claims is true and correct.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: then the President must present evidence for his conclusion.

He can not simply make a declaration and say nobody can investigate whether his declaration has merit or not.

He must prove beyond a Constitutional doubt that what he claims is true and correct.

Well nothing in the U.S. Constitution places this type of requirement on the President.

There is no such burden in existence as the one you assert of, "prove beyond a Constitutional doubt".

People investigate and it is perhaps the check/balancs of the system when the legislative branch disputes the President's claims in court.

[bigstick61]

I was arguing the former. I was kind of getting off topic, though; I started to go off on a related tangent. I don't refute the fact that Presidents do this anyways, with or without a signing statement. It is the fact that this is done which I find deplorable, with the exception of laws which violate the Constitution, which are not bound to be obeyed by anyone. Of course, most laws Congress passes are unconstitutional as well, so in my opinion, they don't really have much room to complain about the unconstitutional acts of other government officials; they are hypocrites.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: then the President must present evidence for his conclusion.

He can not simply make a declaration and say nobody can investigate whether his declaration has merit or not.

He must prove beyond a Constitutional doubt that what he claims is true and correct.

Well nothing in the U.S. Constitution places this type of requirement on the President.

There is no such burden in existence as the one you assert of, "prove beyond a Constitutional doubt".

People investigate and it is perhaps the check/balances of the system when the legislative branch disputes the President's claims in court.


NSA Stymies Justice Dept. Spying Probe
Quote: The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.

"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.

Jarrett wrote that beginning in January, his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday.

"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett.

How can ANYONE investigate the doings of the Executive branch when they Stymie every investigation?
Quote: "This administration thinks they can just violate any law they want, and they've created a culture of fear to try to get away with that. It's up to us to stand up to them," said Hinchey.


There are no longer any check/balances of the system :!:

[Publius2006]

I must say that I believe that this President's use of signing-statements is indeed unconstitutional.

Also someone mentioned something about judicial review not being mentioned in the constitution. That is true, but let's be honest, Article Three of the Constitution is very short and doesn't say much at all about the judiciary other than setting up the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

However, in the Federalist Papers it is explicitly stated that the power of judicial review was intended for the Supreme Court, and that this power was merely implied.

[Norrin Radd]

You people just don't seem to get it.

The consitution is but a memory. It is little more than a historical document which politicans pay lip service to when it suits their needs.

The United States has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. There were a few years duing the 70's and possibly the 80's where there was no national emergency, but at some point, at least since 1986, another national emergency was declared and Clinton renewed the national emergency(s) every year he was in office.

I have brought this up numerous times at this forum, but no one seems to care, as most people just aren't capable of realizing how inportant this fact is.

Under a national emergency the preisdent has almost unlimited powers. The only limits are what the people will stand for.

LEGALLY, a president can do almost anything if we are in a state of national emergency and the sooner the sheeple realize what is going on, the sooner we can act to change it.

I can only hope the people on this thread aren't typical Americans and are willing to do at least a little reading on this subject. We are basically being ruled by Executive Orders and PDD's, but only a tiny fraction of the US population is aware of this.

Unless people are willing to educate themselves and search for the truth, they will continue to argue about stupid, meaningless crap, while the people who control both parties laugh at us all the way to the bank..........with our money.

Just for fun, let's look at some of the excuses that have been used to renew the National Emergency, shall we?

EPF510 05/19/00
Text: President Clinton Renews Emergency Laws on Burma
(National Emergency to be extended beyond May 2000) (540)

President Clinton transmitted to Congress and the Federal Register May 18 notices stating that because large-scale repression of democratic opposition by the Government of Burma continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, Clinton deems it necessary that the national emergency originally declared on May 20, 1997 be continued beyond May 20, 2000.

In 1986 the excuse Reagan used for a national emergency was the threat from Libya. In Sept. 2004 Bush terminated this national emergency and this action made possible the removal of the "remaining economic restrictions on aviation services with Libya [and]... unblocked approximately $1.3 billion in assets frozen under the Libya sanctions program belonging to both Libyan and non-Libyan entities."

Some other excuses.........

problems with Iran (every year since 1979), Libya (since 1986), Iraq (since 1990), Yugoslavia (since 1992), proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (since 1993), UNITA (Angolan anti-communists, since 1993), Middle East terrorism (since 1995), Colombian drug dealers (since 1995), Cuba (since 1996), Burma (since 1997), and Sudan (since 1997). Even the expiration of a statute, the Export Administration Act of 1979, caused President Clinton to declare and renew a state of national emergency (since 1994).

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16932


I would think the people here would be more interested in this, but alas, it seems most Americans are afraid of the truth and as Patrick Henry said.....

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth"

Don't shut your eyes, open them and ask yourself why we have been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933.

[psholtz]

Norrin Radd wrote: The consitution is but a memory. It is little more than a historical document which politicans pay lip service to when it suits their needs.

The United States has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. There were a few years duing the 70's and possibly the 80's where there was no national emergency, but at some point, at least since 1986, another national emergency was declared and Clinton renewed the national emergency(s) every year he was in office.

I have brought this up numerous times at this forum, but no one seems to care, as most people just aren't capable of realizing how inportant this fact is.
I care, and I agree w/ you..

The U.S. today is ruled under the UCC, not under the Constitution.

This is the first step to understanding how the secret government operates. In fact, once you understand that, you understand pretty much all you need to know about these criminal bastards..

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: How can ANYONE investigate the doings of the Executive branch when they Stymie every investigation?

It is called filing a claim in court and making a motion to compell.

Quote: There are no longer any check/balances of the system

Really? This type of exaggeration is not helpful.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: I must say that I believe that this President's use of signing-statements is indeed unconstitutional.


You are basing this opinion on "what" exactly Publius?

[Publius2006]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: I must say that I believe that this President's use of signing-statements is indeed unconstitutional.


You are basing this opinion on "what" exactly Publius?

I am basing it off of the fact that the President is signing a bill into law, while at the same time saying that he reserves the right to not enforce the legislation whenever he sees fit. In one particular case (the McCain torture bill) he says that he will not enforce it if there are any national security concerns, etc. Now I am not debating the positives and negatives of torture, but from the standpoint of constitutional law, the President cannot chose to simply enforce certain parts of a particular piece of legislation. That is akin to a line-item veto which is, until an amendment is passed, unconstitutional.

[GTTofAK]

Publius2006 wrote: Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: I must say that I believe that this President's use of signing-statements is indeed unconstitutional.


You are basing this opinion on "what" exactly Publius?

I am basing it off of the fact that the President is signing a bill into law, while at the same time saying that he reserves the right to not enforce the legislation whenever he sees fit. In one particular case (the McCain torture bill) he says that he will not enforce it if there are any national security concerns, etc. Now I am not debating the positives and negatives of torture, but from the standpoint of constitutional law, the President cannot chose to simply enforce certain parts of a particular piece of legislation. That is akin to a line-item veto which is, until an amendment is passed, unconstitutional.

The president has the right not to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. So what is unconstitutional about reserving that right?

As I have said in previous threads a signing statement does nothing. It only serves a proof that the Executive did not act suddenly or arbitrarily should the instance arise where the act infringes on Executive authority.

[bigstick61]

Ah, but in most instances, the signing statements are used not to justify the disobedience of an unconstitutional law (which most Congressional laws are), but for other reasons, like "national security" reasons, in areas where the executive, and often the Federal government itself, does not and rightfully should not have power.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: I am basing it off of the fact that the President is signing a bill into law, while at the same time saying that he reserves the right to not enforce the legislation whenever he sees fit.

Publius:

Perhaps an adherence to the facts would be helpful. President Bush is not including a signing statement stipulating he will not enforce the legislation whenever he sees fit. Try reading the signing statement again. This correction is necessary since your predicate your conclusion upon this fact. Since this is a false statement of fact you may want to rethink your conclusion unless, of course, you can actually rely upon the facts to make a constructive argument to support your now factually unsupported conclusion.

Quote: Now I am not debating the positives and negatives of torture, but from the standpoint of constitutional law, the President cannot chose to simply enforce certain parts of a particular piece of legislation. That is akin to a line-item veto which is, until an amendment is passed, unconstitutional.

You can appeal to notions of constitutional law all day long. Ultimately, it is pointless to make these broad, general, and abstract appeals and then fail to provide any substantive argument to support your claim. I find NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution requiring the President to enforce a law he believes to be uncosntitutional in regards to some particular context. Your assumption constitutional law prohibits this conduct of course begs the question. Does the constitution/established constitutional jurisprudence require the President to enforce laws he believes to be unconstitutional/interfere with or impede his Executive powers? I seriously doubt you will find a case, memo, letter, note, or anything in the Federalist papers suggesting the answer is "Yes".

Rather, I think based on the writings of the Framers, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and others, the President is NOT required to enforce legislation he believes to be unconstitutional or an infringement upon his delegated powers as part of the scheme of "checks and balances".

Now if President Bush is merely announcing in a signing statement something he can already do then what is the problem?

Quote: the President cannot chose to simply enforce certain parts of a particular piece of legislation. That is akin to a line-item veto which is, until an amendment is passed, unconstitutional

You are comparing apples to oranges. President Bush is not asserting he will not enforce at all specific provisions of the legislation or treat them as if they never existed wheres the line item veto expunged from the existence of the text the provision vetoed.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: The president has the right not to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. So what is unconstitutional about reserving that right?


I agree GTT of AK. However, Publius seems to be running off of the assumption this is an ALL or NOTHING situation. If the President signs the bill, then he must enforce ALL of the bill in ALL instances, contexts, situations, circumstances, and occurrences EVEN IF to do so would be unconstitutional. Of course his rebuttal is the, "according to constitutional law," but then fails to quote a case, letter, memo, or line from any of the documents from the Framers/Founding Fathers to support his contention.

While also making some faulty comparisons and exaggerating what exactly the signing statement says.

[John Galt]

Publius2006 wrote: However, in the Federalist Papers it is explicitly stated that the power of judicial review was intended for the Supreme Court, and that this power was merely implied.

Where?

Also, how is it "explict" AND "implied"?

[GTTofAK]

I think we must remember that we are talking about context here. Laws can be constitutional and legal in some context and unconstitutional in others. Peyote being used for native religious ceremonies vs. the federal and state controlled substance laws would be a prime example.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: The president has the right not to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. So what is unconstitutional about reserving that right?


I agree GTT of AK. However, Publius seems to be running off of the assumption this is an ALL or NOTHING situation. If the President signs the bill, then he must enforce ALL of the bill in ALL instances, contexts, situations, circumstances, and occurrences EVEN IF to do so would be unconstitutional. Of course his rebuttal is the, "according to constitutional law," but then fails to quote a case, letter, memo, or line from any of the documents from the Framers/Founding Fathers to support his contention.

While also making some faulty comparisons and exaggerating what exactly the signing statement says.


Quote: Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

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. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Seems pretty BLACK & WHITE to me

[Medius]

Jimmy Madison wrote:
Really? I seriously doubt it. In some exigent circumstances the President is authorized by the text of the U.S. Constitution to act contrary to the law to preserve the law itself. Abraham Lincoln is a paramount example of this principle in exercise. Try reading the Prize Cases.

Maybe you could give us a little help as to where the text exists in the United States Constitution?

Presidential Powers wrote:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


The Prize Cases don't answer this. The arguments presented pertain to a declared state of war. There was no Congress convened to declare such a war, however, the war did exist and was an immediate threat to the United States. The applications were to those perpetrating war and not the general citizenry.

President Lincoln did attempt to exert power over the constitutional rights of the citizens at that time. He suspended Habeas Corpus in order to detain dissenters. This in fact was deemed unconstitutional.

"National Security" doesn't give the President any additional powers to ignore the rights of the citizens or the laws they create.

What you are arguing is that when the government is impaired in such a way as to make the constitution invalid (meaning there are non-functioning branches) then the other branches may assume the powers which cannot be executed. The problem with this argument is that you are applying the constitution to a government that could not possibly function within its scope due to circumstances. If it could not, then it was not functioning under the constitution. This being the case, simply because such actions were not punished, does not by default make them constitutional.