Presidential "signing statements" and Exec. power, Alito memo from 1986:

[pinto]

February 5, 1986

TO: The Litigation Strategy Working Group

FROM: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

SUBJ: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.

At our last meeting, I was asked to draft a preliminar yproposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first effort in that direction.

<snip>

The novelty of the proposal previously discussed by this Group is the suggestion that Presidential signing statements be used to address questions of interpretation. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes law only when passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or enacted over his veto). Since the President's approval is just as important as that ofthe House or Senate, it seems to follow that the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. Yet in interpreting statutes, both courts and litigants (including lawyers in the Executive branch) invariably speak of "legislative" or "congressional" intent. Rarely if ever do courts or litigants inquire into the President's intent. Why is this so?

<snip>

From the perspective of the Executive Branch, the issuance of interpretive signing statements would have two chief advantages. First, it would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law. Second, by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.


<more>

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BE5iZZr20dUJ:www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf+Presidential+%22signing+statement%22&hl=en

GD discussion and news links here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=51252&mesg_id=51252

[unblock]

1. so, every bill congress puts on the prez's desk is an enabling act?

they're right, they're not nazis. the nazis passed their enabling act straight up, voted and signed and everything.

these guys are far more slimy and dastardly than the nazis ever could have dreamed to be.

[pinto]

2. The Prez's signing statement on torture bill and the Alito memo

actually made me shudder.

This is what they really spend their time on....this is the game.

[Marie26]

3. Thanks for posting this

Yeah, I have a sinking sensation that this memo might be the real reason that Bush appointed Alito. On another thread, someone posted that Bush used one of these "signing statements" today to give himself the right to torture in spite of McCain's amendment. Are there more "signing statements" in our future? Doesn't this policy basically mean that the law is now whatever Bush says it is? Bush first tried to appoint Harriet Miers, who as White House counsel already pre-approved the NSA spying & torture policies. When Bush couldn't get her on the court, he looked for the next best thing. If he can get the Supreme Court to sign off on this interpretation, there's virtually no limit to his executive power.

[bemildred]

4. Gee, this sounds like a "dictatorial edict", doesn't it? nt

[G_j]

5. pay no attention

to that man behind the curtain

"signing statements"
mmm..