Legal Experts to Senate:*Signing Statements = UNCONSTITUTIONAL+IMPEACHABLE

[kpete]

June 27, 2006
Legal Experts to Senate Committee: Bush "Signing Statements" Unconstitutional, Impeachable

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

In a hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on presidential signing statements, which Ranking Member Leahy called "a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances." Recent reports have highlighted how Bush has issued these orders in record numbers and exercised unprecedented overreach by giving himself the authority to ignore certain parts of the laws he signs.

Because of the extralegal nature of the signing statements, there is nothing for Congress or the Supreme Court to actually overrule. Nevertheless, the statements are binding for policy implementation.

Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.

"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically under President George W. Bush, flout the Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count."

Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitution."

more at:
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/06/ale06076.html
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1969&wit_id=5480
http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/statements/06/06/20060627.htm

[partylessinOhio]

1. Damn, then go for the Impeachment of the Imposter!

[marmar]

2. Then somebody needs to hop to it...

Impeach, Indict, Imprison.

[Pierre.Suave]

73. uhmm

an impeachment IS an indictment.

[PegDAC]

99. I think

the indictment should be in criminal court, after the impeachment and conviction in Congress.

[DoYouEverWonder]

93. I, I, I,

Yes, Sir!

[MissWaverly]

3. signing statement overwriting investigation of missing money

Title III of the Act creates an Inspector General (IG) of the CPA. Title III shall be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The CPA IG shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security. The Secretary of Defense may make exceptions to the foregoing direction in the public interest.
1. Provisions of the Act that require disclosure of information, including section 3001(h)(4)(B) of the Act, shall be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-12.html

[Dems Will Win]

77. You're correct

This signing got rid of the investigation of $21 billion gone missing in Iraq

[saberjet22]

79. disappearing act

How handy. I think I'll try to do that with my somewhat more modest debts, and see how far I get.
So, here we are again. Another impeachable offense. Well, let's impeach the stupid greedy fucker, once and for all.

[AndyA]

81. Agreed - IMPEACH THE LITTLE SHIT ALREADY! Let's get the show on the road!

What does the man have to do?

Find someone to give the little prick a BJ, already!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

[MissWaverly]

86. explain how Broadman's defense applies here

First how was Bush protecting us from an unconstitutional law by preventing the search for the
missing money and secondly how did this not interfere with his duty to execute the law? Inquiring minds want to know?

Testimony of
Ms. Michelle Broadman
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Justice

To the charge that constitutional signing statements are a “power grab” and encroach on Congress’s power to write the law, these examples reveal two flaws. First, the signing statements do not diminish congressional power, because Congress has no power to enact unconstitutional laws. This fact is true whether the President issues a constitutional signing statement or not. Second, the statements do not augment presidential power. Where Congress, perhaps inadvertently, exceeds its own power in violation of the Constitution, the President is bound to defer to the Constitution. The President cannot adopt the provisions he prefers and ignore those he does not; he must execute the law as the Constitution requires.


http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1969&wit_id=5479

[originalpckelly]

4. Excuse me, but if no one will arrest this man...

when he is breaking laws, isn't citizens arrest a possibility? Arrest him one day when he is giving a speech. That would be hilarious to see on national television.

[katty]

12. yes+alot of citizens to ward off Homeland Sec thugs w/guns

[Maraya1969]

48. Can a citizen get a warrant? Otherwise someone will get shot

trying to arrest this man. He has too many people with guns surrounding him.

This really is scary.

[bigbrother05]

70. During the State of the Union address

after we take back congress? Maybe they'll serve him papers and frog march the lot of them (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) out of the chambers on live TV.

We can only hope!

[tbyg52]

92. Aye, there's the rub...

...*If* we take back Congress. I'm not talking about the will of the people, I'm talking about more election shenanigans like we saw in 2000 and 2004. Is the Democratic party taking this seriously? It'll happen again if allowed to.

[Occulus]

105. Would he allow an arrest warrant against him to be served? n/t

[ClintonTyree]

5. If we only had a Congress that gave a shit........

but as long as Republicans control it and we have "Democrats" like Holy Joe Lieberman in place Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the worst president, ever.

[faithnotgreed]

100. and its not limited to lieberman

but i understand your point

i totally agree with your subject line

[jody]

6. Links to testimony, Senate Committee on the Judiciary re "Presidential

Signing Statements"

[Supersedeas]

64. thankie jody

[im10ashus]

7. K&R!

Let's just hope that Congress actually does something with it this time. God knows they've plenty of evidence against this criminal cabal.

[silverweb]

8. 'Bout time.

Let's get going on it!

[Nightjock]

9. Senate to Legal Experts

"Fuck You"

We'll just pass a new law and make it legal.

[Marr]

10. You don't steal an election because you respect the Constitution.

It's not surprising that these guys have been so indifferent to the law. I mean- if they'd cared about the law, they never would've got into power.

[unblock]

11. it's worse than a line-item veto

because there's nothing to "send back" to congress for a potential override. he's effectively gutted the veto override power of congress.

kinda explains why he's never vetoed anything yet, huh?

[William Seger]

13. Impeach, or go home!

Impeachment is the ONLY recourse for Congress -- they don't have any way to force * to enforce laws -- and if they don't, if they allow * to ignore legislation, then there's no point in having a legislature. Impeach, or go home.

[Skidmore]

14. And when interviewed about impeachment, every Dem

poltico I've heard say, "But we don't want to do that; we have to consider what's good for the nation." I just want to scream. I've heard that from several Dems this past couple of weeks.

[lonestarnot]

29. Watch the rhetoric change after the election if we do well.

[redqueen]

71. If they don't have a clear process for impeaching BOTH bush and cheney

then I agree that their not impeaching the chimp is best for the nation.

Cheney would be just as bad if not even worse.

[dogday]

15. Check out this post I posted yesterday about this.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1508289&mesg_id=1508289

We noted last month The Boston Globe report that President Bush had made greater use than any other president of adding "signing statements" to bills passed by Congress that he intends not to follow.

Now, Cox News Service reports that two separate studies show that Bush, more than any president in history, has invoked the "state secrets privilege" to block lawsuits that supposedly would harm national security.

He used it, for instance, to block a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency's eavesdropping on Americans' telephone calls.



Between 1953 and 2001, the privilege was invoked 55 times. As far as we know, the Bush administration has invoked the privilege at least 24 times.

[lonestarnot]

30. This son-of-a-bitch gets scarier by the day.

[Yupster]

37. The problem with the Senate is

that it was silent from 1953 to 2001 while there were 31 of these things allowed.

Now all of the sudden they're supposed to say they are impeachable crimes?

Well what about the other 30 times?

They weren't impeachable crimes?

You lose your credibility when you let things slide. It's had to come back later and get upset about them.

[hootinholler]

55. It depends on what the signing statements say...

They are supposed to provide direction to the people responsible for carrying out the legislation, Like DOD, or DOJ or EPA, etc. My understanding is that in the past these directions were about how to enforce a law, not how to ignore it like *'s are.

-Hoot

[redqueen]

69. What's referred to in that article are not signing statements.

The subject of the article you're responding to does not represent the impeachable offense discussed in the OP.

Therefore, the impeachability of the signing statements is not affected at all by this other issue which is the subject of the article posted by the poster you responded to.

[Maraya1969]

49. Why don't they make a law about the "signing statements" ? When he goes

to veto it it may make it to the main stream media.

[earth mom]

16. So get busy Congress! The people demand justice, damn it!

:argh:

[Just Me]

17. For f*ck's sake!!! They are impeachable for many breaches,...

,...of constitutional and federal law, IT IS INSANE!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MissWaverly]

18. don't believe the Bushbots statements on

Bush trying to protect us from unconstitutional laws, just read this statement where he
declares that US contractors can't sue over injuries sustained in Iraq, they think we
haven't read these statements

Memorandum on Authority to Hold Harmless and Indemnify in Certain Circumstances Under One Contract - Brief Article
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents April 21, 2003

a) The contract is for repair and reconstruction in Iraq and is awarded on or before September 30, 2003.
(b) The purpose is to hold harmless and indemnify with respect to claims, losses, or damage arising out of or resulting from exposure, in the course of performance of the contract to which subparagraph (a) refers, to:
(i) chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, agents, or materials;
(ii) land or sea mines or similar explosive devices; or
(iii) unexploded ordnance.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_16_39/ai_101496537

[PegDAC]

102. Actually, MissWaverly,

The Federal Acquisition Regulation and its Supplements require that the Contractor hold the Government harmless. The Contractor is required to provide insurance for their employees. I have 14 years experience in Government contracting.

If you need references, I can provide the following:

The main site for researching Government contracting regulations is http://akss.dau.mil/jsp/default.jsp

A couple of clauses required in contracts performed overseas on government installations are:

52.228-4 -- Workers Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas.
As prescribed in 28.309(b), insert the following clause:

Workers’ Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas (Apr 1984)

(a) This paragraph applies if the Contractor employs any person who, but for a waiver granted by the Secretary of Labor, would be subject to workers’ compensation insurance under the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651, et seq.). On behalf of employees for whom the applicability of the Defense Base Act has been waived, the Contractor shall

(1) provide, before commencing performance under this contract, at least that workers’ compensation insurance or the equivalent as the laws of the country of which these employees are nationals may require, and

(2) continue to maintain it until performance is completed. The Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the Defense Base Act would apply but for the waiver, a clause similar to this paragraph (a) (including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to provide such workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

(b) This paragraph applies if the Contractor or any subcontractor under this contract employs any person who, but for a waiver granted by the Secretary of Labor, would be subject to the War Hazards Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.). On behalf of employees for whom the applicability of the Defense Base Act (and hence that of the War Hazards Compensation Act) has been waived, the Contractor shall, subject to reimbursement as provided elsewhere in this contract, afford the same protection as that provided in the War Hazards Compensation Act, except that the level of benefits shall conform to any law or international agreement controlling the benefits to which the employees may be entitled. In all other respects, the standards of the War Hazards Compensation Act shall apply; e.g., the definition of war-hazard risks (injury, death, capture, or detention as the result of a war hazard as defined in the Act), proof of loss, and exclusion of benefits otherwise covered by workers’ compensation insurance or the equivalent. Unless the Contractor elects to assume directly the liability to subcontractor employees created by this clause, the Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the War Hazards Compensation Act would apply but for the waiver, a clause similar to this paragraph (b) (including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to provide war-hazard benefits.

(End of Clause)

52.228-5 -- Insurance -- Work on a Government Installation.
As prescribed in 28.310, insert the following clause:

Insurance -- Work on a Government Installation (Jan 1997)

(a) The Contractor shall, at its own expense, provide and maintain during the entire performance of this contract, at least the kinds and minimum amounts of insurance required in the Schedule or elsewhere in the contract.

(b) Before commencing work under this contract, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing that the required insurance has been obtained. The policies evidencing required insurance shall contain an endorsement to the effect that any cancellation or any material change adversely affecting the Government’s interest shall not be effective --

(1) For such period as the laws of the State in which this contract is to be performed prescribe; or

(2) Until 30 days after the insurer or the Contractor gives written notice to the Contracting Officer, whichever period is longer.

(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in subcontracts under this contract that require work on a Government installation and shall require subcontractors to provide and maintain the insurance required in the Schedule or elsewhere in the contract. The Contractor shall maintain a copy of all subcontractors’ proofs of required insurance, and shall make copies available to the Contracting Officer upon request.

(End of Clause)

I mean, the ** administration has done enough wrong, in this case, though...

[MissWaverly]

107. what scares me is what is this doing in a signing statement

I have come to believe that Bush considers only his signing statements and executive orders
the law, which is why he has included this here. This is like his little island in the stream.
I understand what you are saying but I am trying to point out that this has nothing to do
with interpreting the constitution, it is the nuts and bolts of running the Iraq War, "managing
congress" and running the government are all in these little kernels. Like the breezy letter
that he wrote requesting 10 million dollars to reimburse the City of DC for security. It's not
wrong to ask for money but that is the purpose of a "budget." I think that ALL the money to
run the Iraq War has been from these emergency declarations and not formally part of any real
budget debate.

[lonestarnot]

19. Woodamn whoo Fein!

[MissWaverly]

21. Lonestarnot, I see you have taken up outdoor sports

way to go!!!

[lonestarnot]

22. taken up outdoor sports?

[MissWaverly]

23. Post signs in precarious places & run

not to be confused with track and field.

[lonestarnot]

25. I only saw those signs ...LOL

:wink: No running involved. That's for fucking cowards. I stand with my signs, great bigass signs.

[dogday]

26. Me like

Good work.... :hi:

[MissWaverly]

20. Here's another statement

which shows just how much George worries about the constitution, it's a document saying that
our soldiers in Afghanistan, etc. cannot be tried in an International Criminal Court.

Memorandum Waiving Prohibition on United States Military Assistance to Parties to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court - Week Ending Friday, September 26, 2003 -Brief Article - Transcript
Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Subject: Waiving Prohibition on United States Military Assistance to Parties to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court
Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002, title II of Public Law 107-206 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.), I hereby determine that:
Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, and Honduras have each entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal Court from proceeding against U.S. personnel present in such countries, and waive the prohibition of section 2007(a) of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act with respect to these countries for as long as such agreement remains in force...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_39_39/ai_110810046

[bonito]

24. K&R

[lonestarnot]

27. hnnnf!

Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[lonestarnot]

28. hmmmmf again!

Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[Bucky]

72. Sorry, but this ain't Ohio, pal. You vote only gets to count once.

[magellan]

31. Yes, Bush** is a criminal

Yes, he's committed a multitude of impeachable crimes, including these signing statements, but hasn't been and probably won't be investigated for any of them. Instead, he continues to enjoy the tacit approval of most Dems and the outright support of most Repugs in Congress.

No one really thinks that's going to change, do they?

[Rex]

32. Unitary Executive powers.

Bush/Cheney believe they are above the powers of the other two branches. They prove this belief everyday they remain in office. Don't expect this to just smooth over between the WH and Congress. Bush really does believe he is a soft-porn dictator! So does Cheney!

[Timbuk3]

33. Bush won't be impeached

As long as the rubberstamp GOP controls both houses of congress, Bush is safe to flout the laws.

Keep your eyes on the prize.

[Nothing Without Hope]

34. K & R - it's time and past time for this n/t

[Cameron27]

35. Well I hope to God Cheney gets indicted before

Bush gets impeached. Not that I'm expecting anything out of this congress, but WTF, even the possibility of Cheney as prez makes me ill.

[n2doc]

57. Ain't he already?

I don't care how it is done, get at least one of them out first. Then work on removing the other one. Once W is impeached Cheney won't have any power to use. He will just be an impotent old Fu** that will be watched very closely and allowed to do nothing.

[Just Me]

36. (((GRRRR)))))

:kick:

[hopeisaplace]

38. So if he gets impeached...can he just write a signing statement

exempting himself from the impeachment

[tom_paine]

39. Who of them have the guts & fortitude to CHALLENGE CAESAR?

<cue crickets chriping>

[BreweryYardRat]

50. Remember how that turned out in the end?

Hmm?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

54. His replacement wasn't much better, IIRC.

[tom_paine]

96. Julius Caesar ushered in the Roman Empire which killed the Old Republic

and they never got it back.

Good Emperors and Bad Emperors was all they had left. If an Emperor wished to respect the Senate and play Republic, than was their business. Like Vespasian and Marcus Aurelius, to name two.

But any time ANY Emperor wanted to be a Crazy Dictator, they could for as long as they liked. Because in an Empire, as opposed to a Republic, respecting co-equal branches of governent is strictly voluntary.

I expect we will get someone of this ilk for our next Emperor. Vespasian McCain follows Nero Bush? Sounds like a plan.

And Vespasian McCain will fully and finally reconcile the Imperial Subjects of Amerika to unequivocally accept their fetters during his 8 year reign (if he is chosen for the purple which isn't certain...an honest man on the throne could be very dangerous to the Imperial Family, no matter how much he appears to have been broken by them), even while healing our nation a tiny bit -don't expect more - and restoring our pride after 8 years of being Bush's Dogs.

Ironic, isn't it?

Then comes Commodus Jeb, I am guessing, or someone of that relative tempremant. It will then be time for the helm to be retaken by the real Masters of Amerika again.

Our one saving hope for the reign of Jeb is that he is of the same generation as the Chimperor, and may not be as much of a monster as his boys will be when it is their time to rule, sometime in the 2030s or 40s perhaps. I don't wish to see it.

Difficult to predict the specific details. The trends are much more obvious. A Bush will rule the Empire again, that much is a 100% Hitler in 1934 certainty, I believe.

And there is no one in the Imperial Congress of Amerika that comes close to the decency and fortitude of Brutus. I would want one to do so, anyway (hear that Agent Mike of the SS, supreme and obedient striking arm of The Leader?) because it is quite obvious that of some crazy bastard did something like that, the Busheviks would lash the rest of us terribly and take away what little freedom remains us. They also might get all KGB 2am door knocking.

America must be restored nonviolently or it cannot be restored.

[tom_paine]

97. Whoa! It's past the editing time limit and I made a MAJOR typo

Hope it doesn't get me a visit from the SS, but if it does fuck 'em. And I am clearly stating here that this was a typo, and posting to my journal so there is no mistake of my actual meaning.

The mistake is in this line:

And there is no one in the Imperial Congress of Amerika that comes close to the decency and fortitude of Brutus. I would want one to do so, anyway (hear that Agent Mike of the SS, supreme and obedient striking arm of The Leader?)

Wups. MAJOR TYPO ERROR. Here's what I meant to say: I wouldn't want one to do so, anyway. (hear that Agent Mike of the SS, supreme and obedient striking arm of The Leader?)


One would hope that the rest of the paragraph provides context which eliminates the erroneous idea that I was promoting violence against the Chimperor Tiberius.

because it is quite obvious that of some crazy bastard did something like that, the Busheviks would lash the rest of us terribly and take away what little freedom remains us. They also might get all KGB 2am door knocking.

America must be restored nonviolently or it cannot be restored.

But, especially in this day and age, when Bushevik propogandists and professional liars are richly rewarded at all levels and worshipped at the dark altar of 21st Century TV, so much so that they can commit felonies and get away with them, like Rushbo or Rove or Cheney or....

My point being, in an age where lies and the truth have lost their meaning and reality is what Leader says it is, for somone to attack me by misconstruing this typo would be typical. In a sane world, this would not be a worry but the thought that creepy crawlers like Conservative Underground who exist solely to watch us (what a bunch of no-life having losers!) could easily take this and smear me on the web with a BIG LIE. It's been done before.

In the current climate, it could easily be conflated into something it isn't. So here's the water on that potential Bushevik brushfire right f*cking now.

LET ME REPEAT: I am clearly stating here that this was a typo, and posting to my journal so there is no mistake of my actual meaning.

The mistake is in this line:

And there is no one in the Imperial Congress of Amerika that comes close to the decency and fortitude of Brutus. I would want one to do so, anyway (hear that Agent Mike of the SS, supreme and obedient striking arm of The Leader?)

Wups. MAJOR TYPO ERROR. Here's what I meant to say: I wouldn't want one to do so, anyway. (hear that Agent Mike of the SS, supreme and obedient striking arm of The Leader?)

One would hope that the rest of the paragraph provides context which eliminates the erroneous idea that I was promoting violence against the Chimperor Tiberius.

America must be restored nonviolently or it cannot be restored.

[autorank]

40. R! This would be Bruce Fein, Conservative. Let the hearings begin!!!

Of course the acts are impeachable. Any 8th grader studying the Constitution knows that. When the law is signed, it's the law not what the tyrant wants it to be.

Wait until enough people have seen the Gore film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Talk about MASSIVE BETRAYAL. These people are haeded for the exile they so truly deserve.

[Senator]

41. Censure >> Impeach >> Remove >> Prosecute >> Repeat

Until all members and appointees of this never-elected, never-legitimate regime are gone.

Some of them to the Hague.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[Sydnie]

42. I just heard this news!

Best news I have heard today! :woohoo:

[Emit]

43. Cheney's role in Signing Statements

Check out who's doing the reviews for these signing statements:

Cheney is Watching: Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff reviews all pending legislation for language that could limit the president's power, The Boston Globe reported this week. Before the president signs any bills, Cheney's chief aide, David Addington, reportedly examines it for provisions that could be used to restrict presidential authority. When such provisions are found, the president adds a statement during the signing ceremony, noting that he does not consider himself bound by statutory limits on his constitutional powers. In his five years in office, President Bush has issued more than 750 such signing statements; fewer than 600 were issued by all previous presidents combined. Legal scholars say Cheney is the first vice president in history to routinely review legislation.

From The Week, June 9, 2006

[jbnow]

47. Thanks. knew it couldn't be bush

doing it, like he'd even read the whole bills.
cheney has been obsessed about presidential powers for decades.

Our country is sick right now.

[PinkyisBlue]

104. My Pet Goat

Bush doesn't read the bills because he doesn't know how to. His reading ability hasn't gone beyond the level of My Pet Goat. Cheney reads the bill for him, writes the necessary signing statement and shows Bush where to sign.

The No Child Left Behind legislation had a statement saying that an incumbent POTUS is not required to read beyond the 2nd grade level as long as the Vice POTUS is able to read well and show the POTUS where to sign the signing statements.

[me b zola]

44. K&R

:kick:

:kick:

:kick:

:kick:

:kick:

[fooj]

45. "political crime(s) against the Constitution" Wow.

[upi402]

46. do you think justice will be served?

or is our republic lost?
sometimes i really wonder.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. "Political Crimes against the Constitution."

Works for me.

[Red Right and BLUE]

52. Chop chop, hop on it, so-called LEADERS!

Get this bastard out!

[Lochloosa]

53. Welcome to DU BLUE

:toast:

[sendero]

56. This issue will..

...eventually be resolved in the courts. As of now, Bush* signing statement have the same legal force as a posting on DU, they have no legal standing whatsoever.

Eventually, someone will drag this whole thing to the SCOTUS, where we can only hope that they will enforce the law.

[maxrandb]

60. Something tells me that the SCOTUS

is no longer a protection against tyranny. This must be what it felt like to be a colonist in 1772.

[sendero]

63. I agree...

... but I'm not completely sure. Sometimes, even wingnuts take their responsibility to the Constitution seriously.

I am pinning my hopes on Roberts and Alito doing just that.

[Heywood J]

67. Ever y day,

I see us inching closer to that. God forbid, but the option is there.

[porphyrian]

58. That would mean our representatives would have to represent us...

Instead of corporate interests or the best-funded lobbyists. How Democratic would that be?
:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. What has actually been done as a result of the 'signing statements'?

If they are 'extralegal', then they have no standing in law, surely? So if Bush has done something only allowed by his 'signing statement', or ordered someone else to do something, surely they can be charged, sued, whatever the normal process would be, and then Bush or his minion would have to face a court - and would then have to show his 'statements' have some legal basis.

So, what have been the actual effects? The statements themselves are just Bush claiming he's above the law. It's when he actually uses them that he can be charged, impeached etc.

[Deep13]

61. I read about this in Duh! magazine.

:eyes:

[acmavm]

62. I (and a few people here) have been convinced for some time

that bush** and his buddies should/could be charged under the RICO statute.

I still believe that. Everything that they've done has been a conspiracy to screw the American public and subvert the laws of this land.

[rjhill2]

65. Hooray!!

Oh my god, yet another reason!! Will it happen? Will it finally break?

[usregimechange]

66. kick

[stepnw1f]

68. Bush is a Political Criminal

as well as a corporate criminal and a war criminal. And a Deserter too!

[yellerpup]

74. President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitut

Let's get on it!

[paparush]

75. Bush swore to uphold/defend the C O N S T I T U T I O N!!

He did not swear to:
Spread Freedom
Overthrow Evil Doers
Protect the Flag

[madrchsod]

76. oh i`m sure bush is losing sleep over this issue

not one thing will be done by anyone to stop him from doing what he wants to do. the senate can huff and huff but they`ll never bring down the house of bush.

[snappyturtle]

78. K&R....

I don't hold any hope that the Congress will do anything with this information but maybe it will point out to some who haven't been listening that this president has far exceeded his powers.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Thanks for posting kpete.

Kicked and recommended!

:kick:

[tired of the right]

82. No impeachment unless

he gets blown by someone.:sarcasm:

[IndependentVoice]

83. I hate to say this because it sounds radical but

this REALLY is starting to look like what happened to Germany, Italy, Russia, ect.

[tavalon]

95. Get used to it

You'll be saying it plenty in the next two years. it's the creeping fascism. Our Democracy may survive but only with radical surgery.

[nealmhughes]

84. This is probably the most impeachable of his multiple offenses.

Jefferson thought that impeachment would be used much more frequently than it has been historically. It is the only check that keeps the peoples' representatives in line with the judiciary and executive. In a sense, the House and Senate are more important than the other two branches, without regard to claims to the contrary, as they hold the power of the purse and of impeachment.
"I do solemnly swear...support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "execute all laws faithfully" anyone?

[Waistdeep]

85. "multiplied logarithmically" ???

I wish people wouldn't use math terms if they don't know what they mean.

You couldn't invent a better nonsense phrase than that. Not that it couldn't mean something in the right context, it's just that whatever it would mean would not be what Bruce Fein intended.

I think he should have said "to a humungous degree" ....... or perhaps "there have been whole gobs more signing statements "
B-)

[ContraBass Black]

90. If he means "to a humongous degree," he used exactly the wrong

Function.

[ContraBass Black]

87. It took "Legal Experts" to figure this out?

In that case, I can go pass the Bar now.

[AzDar]

88. Allow me to kick this s.o.b.!!!

:kick:

[chill_wind]

89. John Dean Jan 2006.."If the subject is torture..."

"
(...)

In short, Bush's signing statements, which are now going over the top, are going to cause a Congressional reaction. It is inevitable. If Republican lose control of either the House or Senate - and perhaps even if they don't, if the subject is torture or an egregious violation of civil liberties -- then the Bush/Cheney administration will wish it had not issued all those signing statements.

Indeed, the Administration may be eating its words - with Congress holding the plate out, and forcing the unconstitutional verbiage back down. That, in the end, is the only kind of torture Americans ought to countenance. "

See link below for more on the subject of BA's conceivable attempt to nullify McCain's torture amendment.

Unconstitutional....

The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush's Use of 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.

more:

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

[myrna minx]

91. K&R. n/t

:kick:

[cornermouse]

94. Well then, hop to it.

1. Impeach.
2. Load 'em up.
3. Move 'em out.

See how simple that is?

[AntiFascist]

98. K & R...

More reasons that Bush supporters are antiAmerican.

[derby378]

101. Damn, I'm ashamed I just found this

I hope this sprouts some real legs, especially with the media. Too many reporters are being distracted with shiny tinfoil and Star Jones' ouster from that Baba Wawa show - what's it called again?

[teknomanzer]

103. I can't even understand why congress is debating...

this point. The constitution explicitly states the duty of the president is to execute the laws, the Supreme Court is the body which does the interpretation and determines whether a law is constitutional. FOR FUCKS SAKE! Most of us learned this shit in 7th grade civics class! I wonder if the knuckleheads in the Supreme Court are really going to abrogate their own Constitutional powers just to allow this cocksmack to grab after more and more power.

This right here is the bullshit that ends the American experiment of democracy and rule of law. In effect the president says he determines the law, fuck everyone else. It's the creation of imperium right in front of our very eyes. Soon congress will resemble the late Roman senate... a gaggle of bitches plotting schemes but never wielding any real power. Freedom will be a faint memory. In this technological age it would be a greater nightmare than Orwell could ever imagine.

Progressives need to make their presence known in 2006. I don't want Dems to be candy-asses standing by allowing this shit to continue.

[Nothing Without Hope]

106. Jack Cafferty/CNN gives strong support - VIDEO AT CROOKS & LIARS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1529695
thread tiitle (June 28 2006): CNN/Jack Cafferty BLASTS Bush for his illegal "signing statements" - VIDEO