General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC: And just like that, the Congressional oversight provisions
Link to tweet
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Can he actually override this provision?
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Hillary use to go after him for it. They're essentially an executive privilege move.
During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes. The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and was also used by the succeeding Obama administration.[3] In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Perhaps this should be challenged in court. Or if allowed, it should be publicized and repeated every day.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)executive privilege. The Republican side that is.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Bev54
(10,045 posts)on Rachel that the congress would have oversight and she smiled so that tells me she has got this. She said she was expecting it.
Bev54
(10,045 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)simple to control executive power.
sop
(10,155 posts)SBoy
(92 posts)Hes got another $500 Billon to hand out to His buddies. He learned from Putin how to rob the Treasury and build allegiance for those who play ball with him. Disgusting that theres no oversight, and that hes using the cloud of the pandemic to rob us all right in front of our very eyes.
malaise
(268,919 posts)Geez lock up this fascist
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Impeach him? Take him to court?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)crickets
(25,962 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)I thought they reflected a Presidents take on the bill, but it had no legal juice.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Legal significance
No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. However, there is also no part of the Constitution that grants legal value to signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, to sign it, or to do nothing. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not.
Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.[citation needed] There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive's position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive's view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.
Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies' usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action.[11]
Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled to Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Samuel Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department see "Presidential usage" below).
Presidential usage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
sop
(10,155 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)sometimes with the legal findings so notorious in the Bush Administration which Obama later took advantage of...
https://www.salon.com/2015/09/19/george_w_bushs_enduring_shame_the_twisted_legal_rationales_we_cant_escape_a_dozen_years_later/
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Ya know the entire mess and how Obama went about it was a case of irony on steroids.
On one hand you have the Republicans who have always expanded executive power and then Obama trumps them on it. lol Not to suggest he should but I think you get my point. In the end the Iran deal was his greatest achievement.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)shits been going on for a long time, I think Reagan had a do-si-do with legal findings during Iran/Contra.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)I don't care who likes them now or normalizes them. Both men lied and destroyed a country and people based on bullshit.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)it's just insane.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
William Blum, in a speech at the University of Vermont, 2007
"I spent thirty-three years in the Marines, most of my time being a hlgh class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1910-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
In China in 1927 l helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
I had a swell racket. l was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions. l might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents."
General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant, 1935
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)I hope the next generation can do better.
LiberalArkie
(15,713 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Congress attempted to grant this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 63 decision in Clinton v. City of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States
Signing statements: provide direction to agencies of how to interpret or enact a legislation
Line-item veto: president removes parts of a bill he does not like, and sign the rest
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Turin_C3PO
(13,964 posts)Unfortunately, with a corrupt Supreme Court and a Senate that wont convict him, our only shot to stop this madness is in November.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,321 posts)spanone
(135,819 posts)calimary
(81,210 posts)Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)about this heist all day yesterday. It should have been a people bailout, and thats all. How many times must we Dems get shit on until we learn. So Trump will become an actual billionaire now because of Covid. His checks are already being written. We are suckers !!
ancianita
(36,023 posts)can't collapse while those bullies force Dems to duke it out.
AMERICANS NEEDED THE MONEY.
There will be more bills coming, as Speaker Pelosi explained tonight.
And every time, senate vampires will insert their beaks in the till. They are the bought tools of parasitic Trump and corporations. Tell this to all the less informed people you know outside DU.
We know what we face.
You sound as if winning these fights is more important than getting the money out to Americans.
That fight can't be right now, though.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)CNBC Now@CNBCnow
JUST IN: United Airlines warns aid isnt enough to avoid workforce cuts
Link to tweet
ancianita
(36,023 posts)remember that airlines are ALL down on customers, having to cancel flights by the hundreds.
All industries are in cancel mode.
AOC knows the robbers have their money and commerce can go to hell.
paleotn
(17,911 posts)We've been down that road before. It's settled law.
ancianita
(36,023 posts)investigation leading to impeachment? I think so.
But first things first.
There's GOT to be a "follow the money team" on this, in reality, even without the usual and customary formal Congressional oversight process.
Maybe the FBI can get an 'off the books' team on this.
There has to be monitoring. This is a national emergency. No racketeering.
theaocp
(4,236 posts)the money will go to the rich. 45 will ignore calls for any documentation and the IG will be neutered.
ancianita
(36,023 posts)suit to nullify the signing statement, claiming harm to the country in state of declared national emergency -- all these actions being all the more reason to exert oversight over an already proven criminal president through formal impeachment.
MerryBlooms
(11,761 posts)Hekate
(90,643 posts)...BE OVERSIGHT FROM THE HOUSE.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)MerryBlooms
(11,761 posts)crickets
(25,962 posts)My bet is on Pelosi. She's tough as nails, she's on the side of the people, and she's angry. Never count her out.
dem4decades
(11,282 posts)Response to BeckyDem (Original post)
MerryBlooms This message was self-deleted by its author.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)The man's got balls.
LiberalFighter
(50,880 posts)Hulk
(6,699 posts)I want to take pride in our political movement...but watching and listening to this woman really left me wanting to say I didn't know who the hell she was, or what the hell she was trying to accomplish.
It was embarrassing. Granted, I probably don't know the whole story...but this was just plain embarrassing to watch. What the hell was going on with her? Was she possessed??
doc03
(35,325 posts)pat_k
(9,313 posts)Whoever it is better be drafting a motion this minute.