Bar None: The New York Sun

[meegbear]

Bar None

New York Sun Editorial
July 26, 2006

The program for next month's annual meeting of the American Bar Association runs to 235 pages, so you'd think they'd have something better to do with their time than natter on about presidential signing statements. Yet they are preparing to do just that, with the release of a report laying the groundwork for delegates to condemn the practice when they convene in Honolulu. It's too bad they're obsessing over an entirely constitutional and increasingly important legal device.

The ABA is joining the caterwauling over President Bush's use of signing statements, documents sometimes issued when a president signs a bill into law. Such a statement can offer a substantive statement of the president's interpretation of a vague or questionable provision in a bill. President George W. Bush has used them to sidestep congressional attempts to make executive branch officials report to lawmakers on implementation of various parts of the Patriot Act, limit use of physically coercive interrogation, and protect supposed whistleblowers in the Department of Energy. Since his first inauguration, Mr. Bush has used statements to challenge 800 distinct provisions in laws he's signed, an unprecedentedly large number.

The president's critics on Capitol Hill, at the bar association, and in the left-wing press see an abuse of power. Mr. Bush, in our view, is just taking a long overdue step to rein in abuses of congressional power. As icing on the cake, Mr. Bush is also reclaiming from the courts some of the power to interpret the Constitution, a task too important to be entrusted to only one branch.

<snip>

Use of the statements has been increasing ever since the 1980s. President Reagan issued 71 constitutional challenges in his eight years, President George H.W. Bush issued 146 in his four years, and President Clinton issued 105 in his two terms. If President Bush is using the statements even more, that's because a lot has changed since those administrations. Congress has followed a long-term trend of interpreting its own authority ever more expansively, while the war on terror has pushed the country into uncharted constitutional waters where it isn't always clear to some, especially on the Hill, where legislative power ends and executive authority begins.

<snip>

http://www.nysun.com/article/36719

In-fucking-credible.

[villager]

1. It's a Murdoch paper, right?

n/t

[NYCGirl]

2. No, but it's very right wing.

The paper's owners are a group of New York City businessmen, as well as the paper's two founding editors. The paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Major backers of the paper include Bruce Kovner, a billionaire financier who is also a backer of the conservative Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, and Roger Hertog, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute. The newspaper's president and editor-in-chief is Seth Lipsky, formerly editor of The Forward, a Jewish-oriented weekly, and its managing editor is Ira Stoll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun

[underpants]

3. Not sure but it was regenerated in 2003 or 2004

The NY Sun went out of business in the 50's. Someone, I don't think it was Murdoch, bought the name and started it back up. I first heard the name mentioned on Hannity's radio show which obviously sent up red flags. Much in the same way Rev.Moon bought and restarted UPI.

They have actually been critical of W and have broke a story or two critical or damning of the Cheney administration but seriously how hard is that?

Also- the NY Sun (the old one) was the "Yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause" paper.

[tridim]

4. Sounds like the NY Sun editorial staff needs to move out of the country

Since it's obvious they don't like America as defined by the Constitution.