Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Lawyers Decry Bush's Legal Interpretations


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

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

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

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

~@~

Is there anyone on this forum who can debate the merits of the President's use of these so-called Statements of Signing ?
Is there any justification for there existence ?

American Bar Association: http://www.abanet.org

Article I. - The Legislative Branch ~ Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7
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 clear, Constitutionally that the President either Signs the Bill or Veto's it if he believes it to be unconstitutional.
I see no wiggle room.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Apparently, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa doesn't see any wiggle room either !

Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush


Quote: 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against 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.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.

Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.

You GO Arlen !

[John Galt]

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 Central Scrutinizer]

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."

[micfranklin]

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:

[John Galt]

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.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Why is the president ignoring our laws?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dobbs.july26/index.html

The ABA asserts that signing statements cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto and that such an assertion of presidential power amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court already has ruled unconstitutional.

If these so-called Signing Statements mean nothing, why then has this President resorted to using them
to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws ?
All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

If they mean nothing, why then do they affect the way the Executive conducts it's affairs
with regards to Legislation passed by Congress?

If they mean nothing, we should not see any deviation in the manner
which the Federal Government conducts it's business,
YET we do see a marked deviation from the intent of Legislation passed.

[bigstick61]

Earlier President's also stated the reasons why they vetoed. It is required when there is a veto. The President must state his objections and submit them to Congress.

[John Galt]

You still have yet to explain to me why the President cannot refuse to spend. If you can justify that you may have an argument. But if you note the Supreme Court's decision in the so-called line item veto case, they made it pretty clear. He can refuse to spend. It's his peroggative. If he feels the nation is best served by not spending line item X on the budget then so be it. He signed the budget, money was appropriated but he did not spend. I do not see signing statements as much of a difference. THey mean nothing, this much is true. Because there is no need for them. He could have just done what he is doing regardless of whether or not he made a statement to the tune of "I will uphold the Constitution if this law and the Constitution ever are at odds." Well I should hope so! He took an oath! He is SUPPOSED to do that!

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: If these so-called Signing Statements mean nothing, why then has this President resorted to using them
to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws ?
All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

If they mean nothing, why then do they affect the way the Executive conducts it's affairs
with regards to Legislation passed by Congress?

If they mean nothing, we should not see any deviation in the manner
which the Federal Government conducts it's business,
YET we do see a marked deviation from the intent of Legislation passed.


Richard Owl Mirror

I think Gault is asserting these signing statements simply declare what the President can already legitimately do. If a President believes a law is unconstitutional in some context, then he is not required to enforce this law or follow it. He is allowed to refuse to enforce/adhere to this law and of course ultimately the issue may be decided in a court of law. However, as Galt has asserted, the President, like Congress, has the authority to determine for itself whether or not some legislation is constitutional until a court decides the issue.

For example, if I understand Galt's argument correctly, all President Bush is asserting with the signing statement is there may be some instances/contexts in which this law impedes or intrudes upon matters of national security and when this happens, he will not abide by the legislation. According to Galt, this is a power he already possesses. Since he already possesses this power, then in Galt's opinion this statement means nothing. It is not adding any new powers to those which the President can exercise.

I think this is Galt's perspective.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: If these so-called Signing Statements mean nothing, why then has this President resorted to using them
to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws ?
All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

If they mean nothing, why then do they affect the way the Executive conducts it's affairs
with regards to Legislation passed by Congress?

If they mean nothing, we should not see any deviation in the manner
which the Federal Government conducts it's business,
YET we do see a marked deviation from the intent of Legislation passed.


Richard Owl Mirror

I think Gault is asserting these signing statements simply declare what the President can already legitimately do. If a President believes a law is unconstitutional in some context, then he is not required to enforce this law or follow it. He is allowed to refuse to enforce/adhere to this law and of course ultimately the issue may be decided in a court of law. However, as Galt has asserted, the President, like Congress, has the authority to determine for itself whether or not some legislation is constitutional until a court decides the issue.

For example, if I understand Galt's argument correctly, all President Bush is asserting with the signing statement is there may be some instances/contexts in which this law impedes or intrudes upon matters of national security and when this happens, he will not abide by the legislation. According to Galt, this is a power he already possesses. Since he already possesses this power, then in Galt's opinion this statement means nothing. It is not adding any new powers to those which the President can exercise.

I think this is Galt's perspective.

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

[bigstick61]

The President cannot ignore just any law. He can only refuse to enforce laws which are unconstitutional, although his claims, even if valid, would be weakened by the fact that he didn't veto the legislation, which is what a president should do but no longer does when presented with unconstituional legislation. Nothing, however, authorizes him to ignore laws based on "National Security" concerns, as it has no real legal basis and is something that can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. He also cannot alter laws himself.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: He can only refuse to enforce laws which are unconstitutional, although his claims, even if valid, would be weakened by the fact that he didn't veto the legislation

Your assumption the President's act of vetoing a bill plays a role in determining the validity of his claims the law is unconstitutional is problematic. Perhaps he signed a law he knew to be unconstitutional? The fact is the signing of a law or vetoing a law does not play a significant role, or any role, in the inquiry of whether or not the law is constitutional (aside from of course the requirements for a bill to become a law).

The validity of the President's claim a law is unconstitutional is not weakened by the fact he did not veto the legislation. In fact I fail to see how the two are related. I see no relevant link between the two at all. The validity of his claims the law is unconstitutional is not weakened by the fact he did not veto the bill. The validity of his claims are going to be vindicated based on a reading of the text of the U.S. Constitution and not the fact he failed to veto the law. The fact the President did not veto a bill does not weaken the validity of his position the law is unconstitutional.

Quote: Nothing, however, authorizes him to ignore laws based on "National Security" concerns, as it has no real legal basis and is something that can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. He also cannot alter laws himself.

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.

[bigstick61]

Why would you not veto a law which is unconstitutional when it is your duty to do so? 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. Would it not be better to veto the law which is unconstitutional rather than to sign and ignore, especially considering that the next administration may change its mind on the matter?

I 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.

[micfranklin]

The President cannot ignore just any law. He can only refuse to enforce laws which are unconstitutional, although his claims, even if valid, would be weakened by the fact that he didn't veto the legislation, which is what a president should do but no longer does when presented with unconstituional legislation. Nothing, however, authorizes him to ignore laws based on "National Security" concerns, as it has no real legal basis and is something that can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. He also cannot alter laws himself.

But he does it anyway.

[bigstick61]

True. It's a gross usurpation of power, but unfortunately the trend's gone too far to reverse quickly. It will take lots of time and reform before the practice ends.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: He can only refuse to enforce laws which are unconstitutional, although his claims, even if valid, would be weakened by the fact that he didn't veto the legislation

Your assumption the President's act of vetoing a bill plays a role in determining the validity of his claims the law is unconstitutional is problematic. Perhaps he signed a law he knew to be unconstitutional? The fact is the signing of a law or vetoing a law does not play a significant role, or any role, in the inquiry of whether or not the law is constitutional (aside from of course the requirements for a bill to become a law).

The validity of the President's claim a law is unconstitutional is not weakened by the fact he did not veto the legislation. In fact I fail to see how the two are related. I see no relevant link between the two at all. The validity of his claims the law is unconstitutional is not weakened by the fact he did not veto the bill. The validity of his claims are going to be vindicated based on a reading of the text of the U.S. Constitution and not the fact he failed to veto the law. The fact the President did not veto a bill does not weaken the validity of his position the law is unconstitutional.

Quote: Nothing, however, authorizes him to ignore laws based on "National Security" concerns, as it has no real legal basis and is something that can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. He also cannot alter laws himself.

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.

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

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Apparently, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa doesn't see any wiggle room either !

Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush


Quote: 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against 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.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.

Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.

You GO Arlen !
Never forget...









... that Arlen Specter was the terrocrat who dreamed up the (in)famous JFK "Single Bullet Theory"



http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/specter.htm

[psholtz]

micfranklin wrote: The President cannot ignore just any law. He can only refuse to enforce laws which are unconstitutional, although his claims, even if valid, would be weakened by the fact that he didn't veto the legislation, which is what a president should do but no longer does when presented with unconstituional legislation. Nothing, however, authorizes him to ignore laws based on "National Security" concerns, as it has no real legal basis and is something that can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. He also cannot alter laws himself.

But he does it anyway.
The Federal Corporation of the U.S. Government is not obligated to follow or adhere to any laws or principles set forth by the U.S. Constitution ... although I admit, it's still fun to debate about what might happen if it ever tried.. :-D

[Richard Owl Mirror]

psholtz wrote: ~snip~
Never forget...
... that Arlen Specter was the terrocrat who dreamed up the (in)famous JFK "Single Bullet Theory"



http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/specter.htm

That's interesting, I didn't know he was involved in that.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/