Since NoOne checks the Editorial: * incredible number of Signing Statement

[rumpel]

John W Dean

snip

By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.

snip

The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): "It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.')."

Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. K & N, this needs more visibility

good find there! well done.

[Anita Garcia]

2. signing statements

Law? What law? I don't need no stinkin' law.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Law? What Do I Care About the Law? H'ain't I Got the Power?

Cornelius Vanderbilt

[Benhurst]

3. recommended NT

[ellenfl]

4. k&r. any stats on other presidents to compare?

it would be nice to see if this is truly another example of his dictatorship.

ellen fl

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Bush is an anarchist.

Just a hunch. It's a foregone conclusion that Cheney is.

[druidity33]

15. achhh...

hey buddy... don't disparage us honest anarchists by trying to put them in OUR camp. I prefer to think of them as evil incarnate or maybe devil spawn... you know, something a little more sinister than ordered chaos. Remember, as a political construct, Anarchy is nothing more than the absence of Government... a prospect that day by day looks more delightful...


...little bathroom magnets...

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Don't mean to burst your bubble, but Dems are antithesis to anarchist.

And you are here because...?

[druidity33]

17. yeah well...

i don't mind being called radical. And who says people can't work together to defeat a common enemy despite differences in opinion? Check out Chomsky's book on Anarchism for a broader perspective of what that word/concept has come to mean...

btw, i am here because DU is a font of timely and important information. I don't believe anything the MSM says anymore unless i can confirm it on DU. Oh and hey... i ain't got no bubbles...

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Just be forewarned. Anarchist are held in regard as highly as

Libertarians around here. Do a search and you'll see what I mean. Maybe you'll understand that what we need is not the absence of government, but the existence of a benevolent one.

[druidity33]

19. like any political philosophy...

its proponents often differ in opinion. I consider myself a Peaceful Anarchist (in the "do what thou wilt, and harm none" vein). I would again encourage you to read a little more on Anarchism... there is great misunderstanding about its potential effects on society. Your conception of Anarchy appears as if it's the political philosophy in its "ideal" state or encapsulated by its brief Dictionary definition. Try to equate democracy as it is defined and at face value with a country in the world and at best you will come up with a republic or other representational gov't, akin, but not really what democracy in its "ideal" state would be. As far as the absence of gov't goes, i neglected one word in that sentence... federal. There may come a time in the near enough future where we will all NEED to be able to govern ourselves. What would you do if the electricity went out with no hope of ever returning? Some natural global catastrophe perhaps, nuclear dawn, decimating global temp fluctuations, pandemic, etc?

When i talk to someone about the gov't, politics, societal issues, etc... i try to listen to what they are saying, as well as identify where they are coming from. I don't denigrate their position... i try to lead them to the truth if i know it and good resources for knowledge. I have met people of all walks of the political spectrum whose views i honestly can honor and respect despite the fact that i don't agree with their point of view. It's a little discouraging to me that without any honest discourse you are saying to me that i'm "as highly regarded as a libertarian" (i guess that means not very highly) and that maybe i don't belong here ("what are you doing here?")... do you consider yourself a tolerant person?

BTW, personally i believe a benevolent gov't cannot be possible while it's representatives cannot easily be approached by its constituents, and while money exists in this world. You may get a few benevolent individuals working within the gov't, but the gov't itself will work primarily towards keeing itself alive and well fed first, before it begins to look to the populace.

Most of all, i respect most what people DO in their lives, what GOOD they have wrought. Not devalue them based on a turn of phrase or a few words. Language is imperfect and some people are much better at using it than others...
Peace to you.

[RazzleDazzle]

6. What is going to happen? Well, if Alito is on the bench...

Bush wins.

Wasn't it Alito who came up with this scheme in the first place, for Reagan initially?

[linazelle]

7. This is the epitome of the Constitutional crisis.

What will happen is that confusion will be engineered by the right wing while Bu$hCo proceeds to dismantle the Constitution based on his "misunderstandings" and personal interpretations of what the job is--to him.

They are radicals who are ruining the country.

[RazzleDazzle]

8. Actually, I think it's Game Over.

If this isn't stopped and overturned, it's "Things ARE a lot easier now that this is a dictatorship" time.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Alito 1986 draft proposal to advance signing statements.

6 pages

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

snip>>>

"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 preliminary
proposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential
signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first
effort in that direction.

A. Objectives

Our primary objective is to ensure that Presidential signing
statements assume their rightful place in the interpretation of
legislation. In the past, Presidents have issued signing statements
when presented with bills raising constitutional problems.
OLC has played a role in this process, and the present proposal
would not substantively alter that process.
The novelty of the proposal previously discussed by this
Group is the suggestion that Presidential signing statements be
used to address questions of interpretation."

[nicknameless]

11. It is the function of the Legislative Branch to make laws.

It is the function of the Judicial Branch to interpret those laws.
Through his new "Signing Statement" thingy, * is interpreting laws and thereby usurping Judicial authority.

Why bother having more than one branch of government, when we've got the Mafia Don in the WH, who is doing it all?

[me b zola]

12. ..."so long as I'm the dictator."

:tells bush* to go fuck himself:

[Inland]

13. Why veto? Just send a message you intend to ignore it anyway

with a signing statement.

[Wordie]

14. "Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes."=unconstitutional

Signing Statements

Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.

Recommended.

[wordpix]

20. " * using signing statements to nullify laws as they relate to executive"

This is the important point: Bush is saying, "Congress' laws are for everyone except me and the agencies of the executive branch, the heads of which I appoint." Thus, the laws are null and void everywhere and for everyone since the agencies can't implement them.

snip: "Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch."