It’s about time there was an open public debate on the constituionality as well as the ramifications of Bush’s extensive use of signing statements to ignore laws legally passed by the legislature. How can there be checks and balances if one branch of governement ignores the actions of the others?
The murmurs of discontent are finally becoming screams of outrage.
The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.
In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.
Is this a real issue? Should we allow the President in the “9-11 World” to act as he likes on whatever parts of law he feels comfortable complying with? Is Bush acting within the powers of his office, or is he acting in contempt of the Consitution? He is obviously violating the spirit of the document, but is what he doing actually illegal?
Before just plainly trashing President Bush, check out what the “previous” Presidents did. I’m not saying that this is right, I’m saying that blindly trashing one without at least researching the other is just openly biased.
Lawyers outraged by anything makes me wonder.
Congress is filled with lawyers making laws for you and me and exempting themselves from the same laws. I could only wish they would become outraged at this inequality. Chances are law making would improve if those making them had to live by them.
“It’s about time there was an open public debate” Where have you been? They have been whining about this for months. Apparently the public sees through these whiners agenda.
I disagree. No matter what happened in the past, using the actions of past Presidents to justify or explain current behavior is a cop-out. Do you tell your girlfriend that you may be a bad lover, but her previoius lovers were worse?
Bush has been President for over 5 years now. It would be good if he finally took personal responsibility for his actions.
It’s my understanding the President can choose to ignore enforcing certain laws as he sees fit… Much like Sheriffs can choose not to enforce certain moving violations, or laws that were pased in the 1800’s that no longer make sense. However, just like the Sheriff, the pres. can be impeached by the legistlative branch to be held accountable for such laxed ways of enforcing the law. Or, voters can choose to remove him from office via the vote.
That’s how I read the constitution…
“…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…
“Shall” is not an optional commandment.
If he objected to the provisions of a bill, he should have vetoed it. If he signs it, then he is obligated to enforce it until later found to be unconstitutional (if that is indeed what he is claiming).
This president truly never ceases to amaze me… with all the federal spending sprees and power grabbing going on over the past 6 years, thank God he waited to use his first veto on last week’s stem cell bill. Compassionate Conservative = Liberal for all intents and purposes.
This guy has had carte blanch. He has the magical power to sidestep the Constitution by uttering the magical phrase “9/11”. I don’t recall seeing him make a speech without it. There is no “illegal” anymore.
#4, Max, this is about deciding that portions of specific laws do not apply. Such as the ban on torture. Bush decided, after signing the bill, that it did not apply while he was President. Not enforcing a law is different from insisting upon your own interpretation which is clearly contrary to the law’s intent.
This has definitely been an overlooked issue for a very long time. Here is a link to a memo prepared during the Clinton administration, it shows just how far back this goes.
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES
I agre with #3. To say that this President can do what he wants because of the precident of a previous president is nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right, except when the right tries to justify their unitary president. It is even funnier when they cite another president wrongly. Such as “Lincon suspended habeas corpus.” In fact he tried, the Supreme Court told him that he did not have the power and congress in fact had to vote on the matter.
Also, IMHO, the world did not change on 9/11, we just caught up. Terroism is not new; we just didn’t care about it until something bad happened us. However, this hasn’t stopped Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez from remininding of 9/11 to justify what they do. On July 18 Alberto Gonzalez spent the first page of his written testimony to congress reminding them that we were attacked on 9/11 and opining that it seems like many have forgotten about it! The nerve. The 9/11 commission gives the Bush administrations handling of post 9/11 leadership almost straight Fs for two years, but to complain that they are not doing what needs to be done means we have forgotten about 9/11. BS, total BS.
So you don’t think the president has the right to free speech? Who cares what he says. It’s what he does that matters. Explaining how he’s going to enforce a law is OK. If a law is unconstitutional, he has an obligation to not enforce it.
Let’s start with one basic statement: “Nobody is above the law”.
If the president believes that a law abrogates his powers, then he should veto the law, and have it rewritten by the legislature so that it applies the way that he feels that it is fit. If the legislature agrees, then everyone is happy, but if the legislature disagrees, then they can override the veto and have the law apply to everyone, including the president.
These underhanded, non-debatable and self-serving ‘the law does not apply to me’ decisions (by wahtever president) are an affront to the American people and it’s way of government.
Can anyone tell me who reviews and approves the exemptions that the President makes for himself and his staff?
I agree with 11, As for the president’s right to free speech (No. 10), that is not being disputed, in fact in the Constitution it states that if he vetoes a law, he must return it to Congress with his objections. His free speech however, shouldn’t be interpreted as law.
If a law seems unconstitutional, its up to the courts to bury it (though I would argue it be done not how most would expect — i.e. Common Law decisions, not Supreme Court mandates). If we (Congress) don’t agree with their assessment, Congress can clarify the law with more legislation. We have to remember that Congress is the powerful branch, it is the essence of our republican government, not the executive, even a cursory reading of the Constituion makes this obvious.
#11 Awake — the primary architects of the signing statement program at the White House are Dick Cheney and his legal counsel David Addington. When Scooter Libby resigned, Addington also took over as Cheney’s Chief of Staff. More info can be found by clicking here. Cheney has decried the erosion of presidential power since (and including) Nixon.
It’s not up to the courts to bury unconstitutional lawes. It falls to all 3 branches. The president has to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’, and he also has to take care that the Constitution be faithfully executed. Without going through the signing statements it’s difficult to say if he is stopping at laws he considers unconstitutional, or is just enacting a line-item veto. The ABA’s report focuses on constitutionality based signing statements.
There is no line-item veto. The President can only sign it or veto it.
Bush has no right to ignore the laws as passed by Congress. If he disagrees with a law he should veto it and see if Congress can muster the 2/3 votes to override his veto. This is just another example of how these so called “conservatives” are destroying our system of government from the inside out, all in a quest for personal enrichment and unchecked power.
Where’s Frank IBC to mention Clinton and pretend it has some relevance to the situation six years later?
13 – Gary
My question is more of “who approves the ‘signing documents'”? I really don’t care who writes them. Don’t they have to be reviewed and approved by some branch of government, someone that say “Yes, you have permission to be exempted from the law as enacted”?
If a ruler is not subject to the law, or can bypass the law just because he feels that it’s his prerogative, doesn’t that make him something closer to ‘king’?
Suppose for a moment that a president exempted himself, by virtue of a signing document, from paying taxes. Who reviews and approves that so it is a legal document?
BTW, I love the example that was given by dummy #8 above, showing that presidents have signed this type of document before. The example given is that of a president signing a document that says “I do not have to enforce unconstitutional laws” . Compare that to the current discussion, where the president is basically saying “I do not have to follow the laws established by the Constitution.” Big, big difference, (exaclty opposite?) and a good example of how some people are willing to twist words to fit their own agenda.
Smartalix……there’s something in law called *precedent*, so stateing that other Presidents(including Democrats) have done this is quite legitimate.
But it really isn’t a real issue. All he is doing is what all the other Presidents have done. Picked out parts of a law that he feels may be unconstitutional and mentioning that in the statements. No where does he ever say that the law will not be obeyed. The article even mentions that if the law or parts of it are challengened in court, the Judge may not even read the statements.
Specter has his shorts in a bunch for whatever reason and God knows the ABA always follows the law explicitaly(tongue firmly planted in cheek)
#1 >> Before just plainly trashing President Bush, check out what the “previous” Presidents did. I’m not saying that this is right, I’m saying that blindly trashing one without at least researching the other is just openly biased.
It’s been fairly widely reported that Bush has used more signing statements than all other presidents before him… COMBINED!
I’ll just do a quick fact-check that so you can’t accuse me of bias:
[quote]An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the U.S. constitution by issuing more than 800 signing statements to highlight provisions of laws he might not enforce, more than every previous U.S. president combined.[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400887.html
From my observation of Bush, I assume he is misusing a provision in that law that probably is helpful, if used judiciously. Bush, not known to worry about setting bad precedence, has just gone wild with it.
So now it has to be challenged in court, when, if Bush had used better judgment, he could have used it now-and-again.
Click here to see the full text of one of Bush’s signing statements. For a really big laugh, I’d like to see Bush go through his own signing statement thoroughly and explain it to us in detail, without reading from a script written by his legal advisers. We could record the video and sell it in the comedy genre to help pay off the national debt, and it could be translated for sale abroad to help offset our foreign trade deficit.
This video might even set the record for the world’s longest blooper — it could truly be comedy gold! I think we may have overlooked the President’s talent to entertain us with his words, but it’s not too late if we act now.
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about precedent. Just because someone did something before me does not give me the justification (it may give me the privilege) to do any such thing.
If a thing is wrong, it’s wrong.
I repeat my analogy: would you excuse poor sexual performance by comparing it with that of the men who slept with your lady previously? It’s easy to use precedent to exuse present wrongdoing.
My country, right or wrong; when right, support it; when wrong, correct it.
Alix, I agree with you. Unfortunately, lawyers and the judiciary have this thing about precedence. To them it is all important in determining the application of the law. When a bi-partisan sub-committee of the American Bar Association determines that the precedents are wrongly applied, then it is time to notice.
America, love it or leave it. And if you don’t love America enough to make this a better place, then please leave.
#22…Smartalix….the anology is getting old, you’ve used it way to many times….lol
Precedent is precedent, it dosen’t always mean that something is right or wrong, just that it’s been done before and seemed to work.
#23…..Mr. Fusion….you always like to tell me that my sources are suspect because they aren’t on your approved reading list….well, citing the ABA for anything in regards to a sitting Republican President is in the same league. I mean lets get real here, this is the group that admits there are almost no conservatives on it’s excutive board and is the Union if you were of the trial lawyers who donate millions to the left and the Liberals. It’s like asking the Chef to give himself a Michelin star.
#24….Sagrilarus….you made the real point of this issue. Only according to the article, the courts hardly ever look at the supporting or non-supporting statements, even the ones a President offers.
He can write anything he wants, the real test is if he ever actually tries to ignore a law or the part he dosen’t like. And that hasn’t happened.
#25 joshua: “He can write anything he wants, the real test is if he ever actually tries to ignore a law or the part he dosen’t like. And that hasn’t happened.” (emphasis mine)
That’s an interesting assertion, but some of the more worrisome “disclaimers” in his signing statements are those regarding policies that would be carried out in greatest possible secrecy, such as his claim to retain the constitutional authority to sanction torture at his discretion.
You continue to have faith, but I lost it long ago.
As a union leader I see Mr. Bush spectrum in all spheres of US gov. For example, postal managers, postal inspectors, and other maladies act like they will always be protected from their contractual and labor laws that they abuse and infringe. It is the government abuse all over. Should be impeached and prosecuted.
The President hasn’t issued 800 signing statements. It’s about 130. The 800 number comes from a grad student, and even he isn’t sure of the right number, even though it’s his thesis! He doesn’t know because it’s not the number of signing statements that he counted, but how many laws get affected by them or something like that.
Could someone post a link to some of these signing statements so people can get a better idea?
Here’s the top ten list. To keep the discussion on the issue, let’s pretend these ten are the only ones he ever made, okay?
Ishmael,
That’s an excellent point. Not only is Bush a wastrel fool who uses the rules to defend himself instead of serving the public, he provides a shining example (and justification) for idiots, poltroons, dolts, and general assholes everywhere.