Political Crossfire Forums

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7246 Location: The Great Satan

In your opinion, are Bush's signing statements constitutional? To what extent can he ignore the law?

bigstick61 · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject:

I guess it depends on how they're used. For example, what most used to mean was that the President was stating how the law would be enforced/executed. The current manner in which most of Bush's signing statements are being used, to ignore Congress, is unconstitutional. Even if the law is unconstitutional to begin with, why sign it, if you are trying to uphold the law? His duty would be to veto it. So that excuse doesn't fly.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

Nathyn wrote: In your opinion, are Bush's signing statements constitutional? To what extent can he ignore the law?

What do you mean by "signing statements"?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Nathyn wrote: In your opinion, are Bush's signing statements constitutional? To what extent can he ignore the law?
To what extent can the president ignore the law? He can't at all. Laws are important, in my understanding. Separation of powers doesn't do any good if one power just ignores the other powers.

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7246 Location: The Great Satan

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: In your opinion, are Bush's signing statements constitutional? To what extent can he ignore the law?

What do you mean by "signing statements"?
When the President signs a law, he can give signing statements. It's just that he agrees to sign it, why, and how he plans to carry it out.

Well, Bush has been unique in that he's used signing statements rather extensively and unusually. He doesn't veto laws, because if he disagrees with a law, he puts forth a signing statement that he's essentially not going to be restricted by the law. This creates a loophole, so that his pseudo-veto can't be overturned by Congress, because it isn't technically a veto. He's also the first President to do this.

So, for example, he passed a law restricting torture a while ago. But after signing it, he wrote a signing statement that he wasn't fully bound by it.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Yeah they're unconstitutional. He's creating a way to avoid separation of powers.

the donnybrook · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 28 Location: Midwest, USA

AgentKGB hit it right on the head. The Constitution does not give the President the power to interpret or create caveats to laws created by Congress. This is well beyond the power of the President, and is a violation of Article I and II.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

Nathyn wrote: When the President signs a law, he can give signing statements. It's just that he agrees to sign it, why, and how he plans to carry it out.

Well, Bush has been unique in that he's used signing statements rather extensively and unusually. He doesn't veto laws, because if he disagrees with a law, he puts forth a signing statement that he's essentially not going to be restricted by the law. This creates a loophole, so that his pseudo-veto can't be overturned by Congress, because it isn't technically a veto. He's also the first President to do this.

So, for example, he passed a law restricting torture a while ago. But after signing it, he wrote a signing statement that he wasn't fully bound by it.

The President is bound to all duties that the legislature assigns him. The executive branch should be nothing more than a tool of the legislature, as the Constitution intended.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:13 am Post subject:

However, if the Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise, he may veto, as he is a check on such legislation.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

bigstick61 wrote: However, if the Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise, he may veto, as he is a check on such legislation.

Which is his check upon the power of the legislature, same as judicial review established by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison. However, if legislation passes judicial review, and is met with either the president's signature or a Congressional override of that signature, then the President is bound to execute the laws of Congress as opposed to setting his own policy to enforce.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:36 am Post subject:

However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.

Agreed, but at the same time it would be a violation of all government officials' oaths to issue and execute such a law, not only the president for enforcing it, but Congress for issuing it, and the Court for allowing it.

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7246 Location: The Great Satan

bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

How would you say he has?

I know he has: Prescripton pills, No Child Left Behind, his changes to Social Security that did not destroy that unconstitutional program, his war in Iraq, etc., etc., all have left us further in debt for thing the Constitution does not authorize expenditure on. But the Congress should not be safe from critcism either; the socialists there too have betrayed what our founders wrote down and the people ratified.

Alas, most people would rather have a little security than a little freedom. All of this socialism is a destruction of freedom and pissingon thegraves of our founders, and a complete disregard for the text of the Constitution which has specific enumerated powers that this governmnet can use, not a blank check.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

Nathyn wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

Says WHO? Certianly not the Constitution. Then WHO has made you believe this lie?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

LostSoul3412 wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, if the Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise, he may veto, as he is a check on such legislation.

Which is his check upon the power of the legislature, same as judicial review established by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison. However, if legislation passes judicial review, and is met with either the president's signature or a Congressional override of that signature, then the President is bound to execute the laws of Congress as opposed to setting his own policy to enforce.

No he isn't. The President is never forced to execute laws that are unconstitutional. And yes -- he can decide if they are or not.

These signing statements are completely meaningless. He does not need to say them. You see, if ever an instance came upwhere to uphold the law would be to disregard the Constittuion, the President is merely asserting his authority that as President of the United States he is first bound to the Constitution and secondly to the statutory laws. These signing statements are silly as is criticism of them.

I hope one day there will be a President who will stop enforcing the law (which is well within his power and the Supreme Court has said so) in regards to spending on unconstutional appropriations (roads, farm subsidies, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.). But hardly anyone in this country has been heeding Benjamin Franklin's advice since FDR.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

How would you say he has?
Well, the first thing that came to mind for me was the disregard for FISA and the fourth amendment when he wiretaps people's phones without a warrant.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject:

Quote: But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

That power is not explicitly granted. Many things are obviously unconstitutional, and it is the President's duty to veto such laws; it is his oath of office.