Excerpts from just released ABA "Signing Statements" paper:

[trof]

I guess this fits in GDP as well as anywhere else.
I think this is B-I-G big!
Since the American Bar Association is desirous of wide dissemination of its recommendation, I don't think this violates copywrite rules.
Excerpts:

The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 required that the Congress be given regular
reports on special matters. The signing statement treated this requirement as “advisory” or
“precatory” only stating that the requirement “would be construed in a manner consistent with the
President’s constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair
foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive or the
performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

This exact phraseology has been repeated in Bush signing statements innumerable times.
Scholars have noted that it is a hallmark of the Bush II signing statements that the objections are
ritualistic, mechanical and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation.60 “These
boilerplate objections placed over and over again in signing statements.”

One learned commentator sums up the Bush II use of signing statements as follows:
“When in doubt challenge the legislative process whether there is a serious issue or not.” He
labels the Bush record on signing statements as “an audacious claim to constitutional authority;
the scope of the claims and the sweeping formulae used to present them are little short of
breathtaking.” They are “dramatic declaratory judgments holding acts of Congress
unconstitutional and purporting to interpret not only Article II Presidential powers but those of
the legislators under Article I.”

The presidential oath enshrined in Article II, § 1, clause 7 requires a President to the best
of his ability to “defend the Constitution of the United States.” There are many ways in which a
President can defend the Constitution. One is to veto a bill that he believes violates the
Constitution in whole or in part. The President must defend the entire Constitution, and that
includes the Presentment Clause and Article II, § 3, which stipulates that the President “shall take
Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….”

In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806), defendants claimed a right
to violate the Neutrality Act because of a presidential authorization. The government countered:
“Among the powers and duties of the president…he is expressly required to ‘take care that the
laws be faithfully executed.’ They will not venture to contend that this clause gives the president
the right of dispensing with the law…He has a qualified veto, before the law passes…When it has
become law…it is his duty to take care that it be faithfully executed. He cannot suspend its
operation, dispense with its application, or prevent its effect, otherwise than by the exercise of
constitutional power of pardoning, after conviction. If he could do so, he could repeal the
law, and would thus invade the province assigned t the legislature, and become paramount to the
other branches of the government.”

Supreme Court Justice William Patterson, sitting on the court, agreed: “Act] imparts no dispensing power to the president. Does the constitution give it? Far from it, for
it explicitly directs that he shall ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’…True, a nolle
prosequi may be entered, a pardon may be granted; but these presume criminality, presume guilt,
presume amenability to judicial investigation and punishment, which are very different from a
power to dispense with the law.”

Article II, § 1, vests the “Executive Power” in the President. But at least since 1688, the
executive power as conceived in Great Britain and America excluded a power to dispense with or
suspend execution of the laws for any reason.

You can read the entire statement (pdf, 34 pages) here:
http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf

[napi21]

1. I think it's worth the time to read the whole thing!

It's 34 pages long, and I just finished reading it. It explains the difference between the signing statements done by former Presidents compared to Shrub's. It's reall great info, and I HOPE it gets major coverage so Joe public understands what's happening too!

[Bandit]

2. Yawn.... Bush* really gives a hoot what they think doesn't he?

:shrug: who is going to do anything about it, his hand picked Extreme Court???

[mavoix]

3. who is going to do anything about it...

It will never get to the Extreme Court, not with watchdog/lapdog Gonzales still functioning as his personal attorney. I have never seen Alberto Gonzales cite any point of law when appearing before the Senate at various hearings, either before or after his confirmation as "Attorney General"...he's an expert at obfuscation, and rather than represent the American people, it's always "the administration wants" or "the administration says", etc., etc., etc. And he never answers a question directly and/or knowledgeably; he either has 'no knowledge of that issue', or will 'get back to you on that', or is 'not able to comment.' I wonder if he really is an attorney, with paid dues.