For Pres, Final Say on Bill Sometimes Comes After Signing (can ignore law)

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: For President, Final Say on a Bill Sometimes Comes After the Signing
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: January 16, 2006
Washington


Shortly after 8 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 30, the White House sent out an e-mail message with an innocuous "Statement by the President" in the subject line. As might be expected of a seemingly routine announcement released in the dead time before New Year's weekend, almost no one paid attention.

But last week, Washington opened its eyes. Mr. Bush's quiet little statement not only set off fireworks at the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., but also ignited a new debate about the Bush administration's drive to expand the powers of the president.

To start at the beginning, Congress late last year passed what became known as the torture amendment, sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to ban cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. Mr. Bush at first opposed the amendment, but gave in when it became clear that it had overwhelming support from the two parties on Capitol Hill. The president then invited Mr. McCain, his old political nemesis, to the Oval Office to announce that he agreed with him and "to make clear to the world that this government does not torture."

But on Dec. 30, after signing the legislation into law with no ceremony at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush issued an accompanying "signing statement" - the 8 p.m. e-mail message - that Democrats and some Republicans say asserted that he could ignore the law if he wished....


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/politics/16letter.html

[IA_Seth]

1. Not surprising...

The surprising thing is the way some Dems have rolled over and accepted this sort of thing from Bush.

They are enablers...IMHO.

[sarcasmo]

2. We are ever so close to having a Dictator in this country.

[IndianaGreen]

3. He is already a dictator

Congress has been reduced to same role the Roman Senate was at the time of the Emperors.

[UpInArms]

4. there was a bit of a warning on December 18, 2000

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

(audio link)

[54anickel]

7. Don't forget July of both 1998 and 2001. The SOB has made the statement

on three, count 'em, THREE different occassions. He's obsessed with the notion.

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

22. Don't forget * blatantly fascistic behavior

which started becoming clear about the time when they shoulda stopped using 911 to squelch dissent.

Oh say in the next months, maybe January or so.

[JDPriestly]

5. Under the Constitution,

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. Why can't Bush understand that? He has been confused about that from day one. I recall way back when he made some statement about the roles of the various branches of government, and it was completely wrong. Schwarzenegger seems to harbor the same misconception. We do not have a parliamentary system. We do not have a prime minister who is appointed by the party in power. We have a president who manages the executive branch. He has no vote whatsoever in the legislature. His office can draft or suggest legislation, but he has to sign off or not sign off. He has no voice other than that in the legislative process. HE HAS NO VOTE. Why can't these guys read the Constitution of the US or of their states. What a bunch of ignoramuses.

[54anickel]

6. How well educated was OBL in US constitutional law? Cuz he sure

set it's destruction into high gear with 9-11.

Bet that SOB is a card-carrying member of PNAC, that or someone is someone elses tool.

Did OBL use PNAC or did PNAC use OBL? Seems both want to destroy our constitution, with each hoping for very different outcomes. The total destruction of the US (as OBL said, "reduced a mere shadow of herself"), or the destruction of our constitutional rights and power of the people. We're screwed either way. :tinfoilhat:

edit cuz I kant spel.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. OBL, PNAC, the House of Saud & the "legitimate" Bin Ladens

are all fellow-travellers. This dawned on me on about Sept 13, 2001 when I found out about the Bush/bin Laden connections.

[jody]

9. I like Bush’s style and since all his power comes from the people

and I’m one of them, I hereby issue my own signing statement that I will not abide by that part of our law pertaining to taxes.

What’s good for the goose (president) is good for the gander (people).

[wordpix]

10. * has issued about 600 "signing statements" exempting exec branch from

certain laws. There's a thread on that somewhere from a few days ago on DU.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Big self-kick in honor of Al Gore! This is what he was talking about. nt

[onenote]

12. unprecedented? only in the number of times he's done it.

chimpy hasn't invented anything new with his use of signing statements, he's just taken the practice to a whole new level. But the fact is that signing statements in various forms have been used by presidents for a long time. During the Clinton presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo addressing the practice that, quite frankly, is pretty weak. I'm not sure that the various categories of signing statements identified in the memo are that readily distinguished from each other. Even the article acknowledges that signing statements have been employed both by Democrats and repubs. As best I can tell, they haven't made a heck of a lot of difference. Frankly, if he didn't issue these signing statements, would anything be different? http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

onenote

[tinfoilinfor2005]

13. I'm quite surprised that Elisabeth Bumiller wrote this article

and it didn't put bush in a flattering light. She normally has her lips planted firmly on his behind.

[rodeodance]

14. (can ignore law)--correction--as Gore said--Congress has no oversite-

they are subsurviant to the Exec. branch.

[JPZenger]

15. Knight Ridder's Investigative Report on Signing Statements

From the Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau, as published on the front page top of the Phila. Inquirer and other papers 1/16/05

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13636171.htm
(free registration required)

"Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise, or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national-security issues. "It's nothing short of breathtaking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University in Oregon. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary."

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but the White House hopes they will influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive-branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws. In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers unconstitutional encroachments on his authority.

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done, so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming." The White House insists its authority stems from the Constitution, but dissenters say that view ignores that document's careful balancing of powers among branches of government."

[JPZenger]

16. Knight-Ridder's Investigative Report on Signing Statements

From the Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau, as published in the Phila. Inquirer and other papers 1/16/05

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13636171.htm
(free registration required)

"Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise, or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national-security issues. "It's nothing short of breathtaking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University in Oregon. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary."

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but the White House hopes they will influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive-branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws. In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers unconstitutional encroachments on his authority.

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done, so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming." The White House insists its authority stems from the Constitution, but dissenters say that view ignores that document's careful balancing of powers among branches of government."

[JPZenger]

17. Knight Ridder

From the Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau, as published in the Phila. Inquirer and other papers 1/16/05

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13636171.htm
(free registration required)

"Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise, or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national-security issues. "It's nothing short of breathtaking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University in Oregon. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary."

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but the White House hopes they will influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive-branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws. In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers unconstitutional encroachments on his authority.

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done, so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming." The White House insists its authority stems from the Constitution, but dissenters say that view ignores that document's careful balancing of powers among branches of government."

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. Here's a link to Whitehouse.gov

It took a long time to find it. They keep it hidden, though in plain sight.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014, 8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

And so forth.

Google for unitary executive branch.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

19. dupe, delete.

dupe, delete.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

20. dupe, delete.

dupe, delete.

[struggle4progress]

21. For Pres, Impeachment Sometimes Comes After First Term

[progressoid]

23. Oy

Mr. McCain issued a strong statement rejecting Mr. Bush's assertion, even as the White House has repeatedly declined to say what the president meant. But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, had no doubts, and told Judge Alito at the hearings that Mr. Bush had in essence stated that "whatever the law of the land might be, whatever Congress might have written, the executive branch has the right to authorize torture without fear of judicial review."

[ananda]

24. So, Bush is really saying that..

.. if he doesn't get it right the first time, he can just change it at whim.

Sheesh.

Incompetence is rampant when the executive controls everything in
a tyrannical fashion, as Gore said this morning.

Sue

[mom cat]

25. Alito must be stopped!