It's true--signing statements really do nullify laws

[eridani]

http://www.alternet.org/stories/54543/

Well, it's official: President Bush doesn't much respect the laws Congress passes. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- commissioned by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and released today -- confirms that Bush's use of presidential signing statements are, in fact, utterly without precedent.

Though they've been used by American presidents for about 200 years, signing statements -- edicts issued by the president to declare his intent to construe a provision within a law differently than Congress does -- are Constitutionally questionable. But George W. Bush's use of them far exceeds his predecessors', both in number and in severity, and he has consistently used them to flout the will of the legislative branch.

Though the GAO report makes no claims about the legitimacy of Bush's statements or of the use of statements in general, it indicates that, in practice, the statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases. The issues are important: They include accounting for Iraq war funding and security measures for the border patrol.

[Lasher]

1. The GAO report does not say they are legal

It does say signing statements are being used to nullify (break) the law, as you point out. The thing to do is, pick out a case and force it to the SCOTUS. They would rule that signing statements have no more legal authority than any other series of editorial comments. And we need to pack people off to jail when they follow the direction of signing statements that are contrary to provisions of the law.

[frogcycle]

2. and sadly

given this unilateral power grab by one of the three parts of government, the Constitutional remedy would be for the SCOTUS to rule on a case brought before it wherein someone sues someone for non-enforcement or mis-enforcement of a congressionally passed and executive-signed law...
but that is not going to happen, because, for one thing there is just too damned much to be dealing with, and even if someone picked out an issue and tried to run it up the judicial chain it would take years and then the bush-packed SCOTUS would rule in his favor.

So we are living with the results of a coup and just don't seem to get it. The two alternative remedies are to throw the bums out in the next election, just living with the shit in the meantime, fighting it as best we can, or throwing them out via impeachment.

The latter is the proper Constitutional remedy, but it is a one-criminal-at-a-time process that would have little affect even if successful, and the atmosphere/environment in the country is such that there is risk of it backfiring and solidifying their stranglehold. I still think it should be done, even if just to go on record as condemning the lot of them.

Just as with the mess made of Iraq, there are no good answers. Even with poll numbers being what they are, the MACHINE owns the mass media, which could go into high gear with mind-manipulation tactics and turn the impeachment effort into an OJ trial. Think about it - talk about Assault on Reason - that verdict is the poster child! If that can happen in our system of justice, how can we have much confidence in right prevailing anywhere?

[fasttense]

3. So where exactly in the Constitution of the United States

is the description of signing statements? Oh wait they aren't in the Constitution nor is unitary executive in the Constitution. Didn't the crazy king george swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States? I remembering him raising his right hand and swearing something like that. Well I guess he's just ignoring that document as well as numerous other laws. We can't Impeach him for that. :sarcasm:

Impeachment is not going to work because the Republic Senators will block the impeachment vote.

I say we put everyone of those rubber stamp Senators to the test.

Put them on the record in support of a president that ignores the Constitution. Let the whole world see exactly who those Senators are.

We should do this right before the 2008 election. Then see what happens.

[indepat]

11. Bingo!

[annabanana]

4. "intent to construe"?

edicts issued by the president to declare his intent to construe a provision within a law differently than Congress does.

I thought that up to now, the signing statements just made clear the disagreements that the President may have had with the laws he was signing... Not a statement of intent not to enforce the law as written.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think no one ever wrote one of those things to signal an intent NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW!

[DrDan]

5. Does anybody really believe that this group of felons

will break only those laws covered by signing statements? If so, they are delusional. These guys will do as they please, regardless of the laws broken.

[rodeodance]

6. AND EXPANDS the powers of the president!

[Olney Blue]

7. It's the "Do Whatever I Damn Well Want" presidency.

[hootinholler]

8. They got it wrong...

signing statements -- edicts issued by the president to declare his intent to construe a provision within a law differently than Congress does --

Not until Bush did they offer interpretations contrary to the law. Others issued in the past generally provide guidance in the implementation of of law as written.

-Hoot

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Has anyone tested the legality of signing statements in the court?

If it undermines checks and balances, wouldn't it be considered unconstitutional?

[eridani]

12. I don't know

ACLU, perhaps? I'll drop my local chapter a note.

[OneBlueSky]

10. so let me get this straight . . . we now have a government in which one man . . .

has the power (which he assumed for himself) to change any law passed by Congress to suit his particular whim . . . isn't this perilously close to a dictatorship? . . . if the president has such power, why do we need a Congress? . . . seems to me they're nothing more than window dressing, kept around to maintain an illusion of democracy when, in fact, there is none . . .

in the past, Congress was very protective of its own powers and prerogatives, particularly when it came to the separation of powers . . . any attempt by the executive to assume more power for itself at Congress' expense would have been met with strong and vocal resistance . . . have things changed so much that Congress is now willing to let the president steal their power away without so much as a whimper? . . . I guess it all began when they ceded their war-making responsibilities -- and now it seems to extend to every kind of legislation . . .

'tis a scary time in which we live, no? . . .

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Yes, but what about his signing doodles.

He doodled a house and a tree and a smiling sun on the IWR, and on the anti-stem cell legislature he drew a stick figure with boobs.

Any lawyers want to chime in on what this all means legally?

[Mark_Pogue]

14. And you'll find that Bush

has signed more than anyone else.