Globe/Savage: Group opposes loss of signing statements

[Rose Siding]

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | August 5, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A group of former Clinton administration lawyers are urging the American Bar Association to reject its panel's call for presidents to stop issuing ``signing statements" that reserve the right to bypass laws, saying the problem is with President Bush's use of such statements, not the mechanism itself.

The ABA's 550-member House of Delegates will vote next week on endorsing a high-profile task force's conclusion that the Constitution gives presidents two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and enforce all of it. As the vote nears, several law professors who helped draft signing statements for President Clinton have emerged as critics of the task force's recommendations.
...
``It is a mistake . . . to respond to these abuses by denying to this and future presidents the essential authority, in appropriate and limited circumstances, to decline to execute unconstitutional laws," Dellinger wrote.

He has also joined several other Clinton Justice Department officials in writing a lengthy essay accusing the ABA task force of distorting the issue out of a desire to appear bipartisan. The group, which posted its essay on several prominent blogs this week, includes professors Martin Lederman of Georgetown, David Barron of Harvard, Dawn Johnsen of Indiana, and Neil Kinkopf of Georgia State.

They argued that because Congress often lumps many laws into a single bill, it is sometimes impractical to veto the entire package because a few components have minor constitutional problems. Take away signing statements, they said, and presidents probably still will sign such bills -- only the public won't know that some parts of the bill may not be enforced.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/05/group_opposes_loss_of_signing_statements/

[Toots]

1. This part IMO is complete hogwash

``It is a mistake . . . to respond to these abuses by denying to this and future presidents the essential authority, in appropriate and limited circumstances, to decline to execute unconstitutional laws," Dellinger wrote."

The President not only has authority but has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect it. He does not need special authority to decline to execute an unconstitutional law. And it is the Supreme Court that decides what is unconstitutional or not, not the President. This line of reasoning is absolute garbage.

[rodeodance]

3. if Pres. thinks it is Unconstitutional--then he can file a law suit like

the rest of us.

[krkaufman]

9. Exactly. I remain baffled that these signing statements ...

... are considered remotely legal. Where in the hell are "signing statements" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution? I've always thought/assumed that the President is strictly limited to either signing or vetoing a bill -- and that's it.

The ABA's 550-member House of Delegates will vote next week on endorsing a high-profile task force's conclusion that the Constitution gives presidents two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and enforce all of it.

The Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to create new law; it's just supposed to "execute" or "administer" the laws -- as set forth by the Congress -- while the Judicial Branch oversees that enacted laws are in line with the Constitution. Pretty damn simple.

So where and when the hell did this signing statement BS crop up?

While we're on the subject...

only the public won't know that some parts of the bill may not be enforced.

Exactly how is it legal for the Executive Branch to refuse to enforce a law? Can a given police department just choose not to enforce anti-drug or other laws?

How many laws are on the books that this Administration, and those past, have opted to not enforce?

This all just boggles the mind.

[Rose Siding]

4. It appears to give him license to legislate a line item veto, too

-so the argument hands him both judicial AND legislative powers

[rodeodance]

2. "limited circumstances"---arrogance and the Power always prevail!

[acmavm]

5. Signing statements are just a scam for an administration to get around

the law or to get something it wants that goes against the demands of the House and Senate and/or the people.

They are an unconstitutional scam.

[leesa]

6. We must re-do our entire government to accomodate this one criminal,

Bush. Why not get rid of the criminal?

[WhiteTara]

7. Hear Here!!! Bushco to the Hague! n/t

[anotherdrew]

8. bullshit

if a president is faced with an 'unconstitutional laws' why doesn't that president just take it to ocurt and get an injuction? or NOT SIGN IT into law in the first place?