He's using the Signing Statements as a Line Item Veto -

mikelewis

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-02-06 11:57 PM
Original message

He's using the Signing Statements as a Line Item Veto -

When the President signs a bill into law, he issues a letter to Congress that accompanies his signature of the Bill. I've read through a few of them and I began to realize, he's using the signing statements as a Line Item Veto. For example:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 1025(d) of the Act,
which purports to determine the command relationships among certain
elements of the U.S. Navy forces, as advisory, as any other construction
would conflict with the President's constitutional authority as
Commander in Chief.
Provisions of the Act, such as sections 2104 and 6024, purport to
require congressional committee approval prior to certain obligations or
expenditures of funds appropriated by the Act. The executive branch
shall construe such provisions to require only prior notification to
congressional committees, as any other construction would be contrary to
the constitutional principles set forth by the Supreme Court of the
United States in 1983 in INS v. Chadha.
Section 6025 purports to regulate the content of the President's
annual budget submission, which is a proposal for enactment of
legislation to appropriate funds. In addition, section 301 calls for
submission of legislative recommendations by an executive branch
official to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these and
any other similar provisions in a manner consistent with the
Constitution's commitment to the President of exclusive authority to
supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the
consideration of the Congress such measures as the President shall judge
necessary and expedient.
Several provisions of the Act, including sections 6041, 6042, 6043,
6052, 6053, 6069, 6070, 6071, and 6072 make specified changes in
statements of managers of the House-Senate conference committees that
accompanied various bills reported from conference that ultimately
became laws. As with other committee materials, statements of managers
accompanying a conference report do not have the force of law.
Accordingly, although changes to these statements are directed by the
terms of the Act, the statements themselves are not legally binding.
George W. Bush
The White House,
May 11, 2005.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=63037227269+19+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Now, I'm no lawyer but in CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,ET AL . v. CITY OF NEW YORK, the Supreme Court specifically stated that this type of activity was not allowed. The President only has two choices, either sign it or veto it.

There are important differences between the President's "return" of a bill pursuant to Article I, §7, and the exercise of the President's cancellation authority pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. The constitutional return takes place before the bill becomes law; the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law. The constitutional return is of the entire bill; the statutory cancellation is of only a part. Although the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes.

There are powerful reasons for construing constitutional silence on this profoundly important issue as equivalent to an express prohibition. The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only "be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure." Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951 . Our first President understood the text of the Presentment Clause as requiring that he either "approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto." 30

What has emerged in these cases from the President's exercise of his statutory cancellation powers, however, are truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses of Congress. They are not the product of the "finely wrought" procedure that the Framers designed.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=97-1374

So, under our Constitution, these signing statements have absolutely no authority. If the President signed the Bills into Law, that's now the Law. If based upon his perceived inherent Constitutional authority, he chooses to ignore specific sections of the laws he signed, he would be in willful violation of not only letter of the law but the spirit as well. He can't simply sign a Bill into Law and then state which parts of the law he's going to ignore. If the Bills have statutes that are unconstitutional, then he must Veto the Bill and send it back to Congress for review or to be over-ridden by a 2/3 majority in the House. This is not simple ignorance from a bumbling Chimp, this is arrogance, pure and unbridled.