How R signing statements that alter the context & content different than

[Toots]

"Line Item Vetos" that the Extreme Court ruled were unconstitutional? Remember the Contract with America? Several things were ruled Unconstitutional in it and "Line Item Veto" was one of those things along with term limits for Congressmen. Bush* has been using what he refers to as "signing statements" to alter the intent and meaning of the legislation so how is that different than a veto?

[justabob]

1. it is not different that I can tell... only sneakier

seeing as how he has used them dozens of times and we never heard a word about them until the torture ban legislation.

on edit: Oh and with this type of veto, the Congress has no recourse ala 2/3 majority to override.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Both Line Item Veto and Signing Statements are Unconstitutional

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was determined Unconstitutional in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996).

The president has never had the authority to interpret the law. That power is solely owned by the courts. If the lawmakers don't like the way the president is executing the laws, they can take it to the supreme court (or better yet, impeach).

[bryant69]

3. Because it states intent to execute those orders.

The Line Item veto prevents something from becoming law - De Jure law. Thus it never makes it on the law books, and it suits can never be brought based on law that, in fact, doesn't exist.

What the President is saying, on the other hand, is how he will execute (in the sense of carry out, not the sense of eliminate (although both could apply, really)) the laws that congress passes. Obviously the executive branch has to decide how to execute those laws, and what Bush is doing, while reprehensible, is probably not that far outside his boundaries.

OF course the difference is that there is a law on the books; Congress or other groups can go to the courts and seek a clarification.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Toots]

5. I thought they were to to justify an intent to not follow those orders

at his own discretion. By using a statement declaring his intentions different than the legislation it would seem to me he is saying if he feels like it he will disregard/veto the legislation on a day by day basis. IOW he will decide Law at his own discretion, not that he intends to follow the law faithfully...Otherwise why sign (with a clause).. ?

[Atman]

4. There was an entirely different take on this in the paper last week.

I've heard interesting interpretations of this "signing statement" crap lately. According to an article last week in the very republican Hartford Courant, though, these statements legally do nothing. Their purpose is to put into the public record what the president's INTENT was when he signed a particular bill. IOW, he signs the "Take Food From Your Babies" act, and as he signs it, he says "I intend for this act to put food into the mouths of more babies!" Then, so the theory goes, when it get taken before the SCOTUS, they can read the president's INTENT when he signed the bill in making their decision whether or not a bill is constitutional, regardless of how the law was actually written, or what the LAWMAKERS'intent was when they wrote it. It is a relatively new trick for a president. It was mapped out years ago by these guys, and Bush has been doing it since day one, waiting for the time one of his bills gets dragged before the SCOTUS, at which point, his hand-picked crony (read: Alito) would help rule that "Presidential Signing Statements" constitute some sort of legal document toward the meaning of a bill.

It is nothing more than another extra-legal maneuver in Cheney/Bush's grab for unfettered presidential power. Lie, get your lie entered into the record, then use your lie to your benefit. Textbook BushCo. He cannot do ANYTHING without it being a scam.

Oh, on edit: The Courant article very clearly stated that such "signing statements" have held virtually NO WEIGHT before the court so far. That is why Bush needs ALITO.

[Dr.Phool]

6. Also, the Presidents intent doesn't mean shit.

It has always been the Congress intent when they passed the bill. The president has the option of vetoing the bill, not reversing intent.