Kerry Bill Would Prevent President from Misusing Signing Statements

[Island Blue]

Kerry Bill Would Prevent President from Misusing Signing Statements

Washington, DC – Senator John Kerry today announced that he will co-sponsor legislation aimed at preventing the President from writing so-called “signing statements” when he signs bills – a little known measure that allows the White House to effectively circumvent Congress. Under the bill, a president could not issue a signing statement if it substantially altered the original legislation. Kerry co-sponsored the legislation with Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn) and the measure could be voted on as early as this month if it is added as an amendment to the defense spending bill.


“The Bush Administration’s abuse of signing statements is clearly unconstitutional and renders the Constitution’s system of checks and balances null and void,” Kerry said. “With these statements, the President has effectively subverted the law and the legislative process without actually ever using a veto. No administration should be allowed to cherry-pick legislation this way. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and I want to again thank the Boston Globe for shining a bright light on this abuse.”

This is fantastic news. I especially love that Sen. Specter is a co-sponsor. Something should have been done a long time ago to curb bush's abuse of power, but hey, better late than never. Thank you once again Senator Kerry for stepping up to the plate.

[babylonsister]

1. This man doesn't stop-I love him! Thanks! nt

[YvonneCa]

2. True leadership...

...from Senator Kerry. Thank you, sir, for keeping up the fight! :patriot:

[redphish]

3. Seems like a good idea but hard to enforce.

Defining "substantially altered" for any given bill would be tricky. The only real solution is an honest President.

[Elspeth]

Would there be a way to demand Congressional approval for such signing statements?

Dreaming, I know. :)

[redphish]

12. The thought of the President and Congress ping ponging

a bill back and forth like that makes me dizzy.

:crazy:

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. If there's a will there's a way. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

4. The answer to signing statements is to ignore them.

Bush's signing statements are as legal as your own.

[BrainGlutton]

21. Actually, there is case law to the effect that presidential signing statements

are relevant to consider when a court interprets a statute. Goes back to the FDR Administration. The theory is that the president is acting in a legislative capacity when he signs a bill, therefore his interpretation of it, while not dispositive, must be given some weight.

[BuyingThyme]

22. Yes, you are correct, and I am aware of that (with exception of the FDR part).

But I don't think that precedent applies to the crap Bush pulls because he does much more than interpret; he writes his own clauses.

[globalvillage]

5. Arlen?

I hope he votes for his own legislation.

Thanks, JK!

[ProSense]

8. Yup!

Arlen should know that it's never a good idea to undermine his own legislation.

Excellent that Senator Kerry is sponsoring this.

[BuyingThyme]

10. His plan is to write language into the bill which indicates that

presidents can no longer use signing statements as Bush has. By doing this, he establishes a precedent which can be used to prove pseudo Constitutionality. This will protect Bush and other criminals by retroactively affirming something that has never had any basis in law before the likes of Kerry and Specter messed with it.

They're making the same exact mistake with habeas corpus. They're restoring instead of reaffirming. No congress or president has the right to suspend habeas corpus, but by using language which restores instead of affirms, they're implying that it was legitimately taken away.

Democrats are suckers. Arlen kicks their asses every single time.

[ProSense]

17. Nonsense!

They're handling it the right way:

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.

This is not McCain and Graham going off and kissing Bush's a**. I doubt Senator Kerry is going to fall into the trap of supporting a bill like the one to do away with habeas corpus and supporting torture.

It's one thing for laws to exist (and they still do), Bush ignoring them is quite a different issue: it's criminal.

[BuyingThyme]

20. Issuing signing statements and ignoring the laws are two completely

different things.

When they write laws in your state, you can issue a signing statement which indicates that you have no intention of following it. But you haven't done anything illegal until you break the law.

Unfortunately, Kerry and company are probably getting suckered into believing otherwise.

[ProSense]

23. You know laws can be interpreted, and

Clinton issued signing statements to clarify his interpretation of what he believed the laws enacted by Congress meant. There is a precedent for using them. Bush issues signing statements to claim laws do not apply to him so in essence these two actions are one in the same.

[BuyingThyme]

24. You don't really believe the courts would use the Clinton precedent

to rule that the laws don't apply to Bush, do you? We're talking apples and war criminals.

[ProSense]

26. Have you met the

court?

[BuyingThyme]

27. Point taken, but I'm trying to stay within known law.

Lots of work can go into interpreting the laws, including examining the intentions of the people who wrote them. They go back and examine debates to determine what the legislators were thinking. They examine the laws on which the latter laws were based. (Etc.) I think your point about signing statements comes a few notches below these examples.

[karynnj]

32. It might be a good idea to wait to see what the bill actually does

Senator Kerry is a very good lawyer himself and he very likely would have discussed this with his staff and well respected constitutional lawyers. We don't know from this whether this was a Kerry idea or a Spector idea. (Is there a significance in that he is co-sponsoring it with Spector, instead of sponsoring it with Spector? This may just be semantics, but I think with Kerry/Feingold, for example, both were said to be sponsoring.

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. This is excellent

Thank you Senator Kerry for going after the abuse of power once again. It is also very good that he is joined by Specter.

[msongs]

9. sorry john - signing statements already violate the constitution which says...

the congress passes the laws and the president must either veto them or sign them and implement them. There is no constitutional authority to pick, choose, and alter the laws as passed and NOT vetoed.

the remedy for unconstitutional behavior by the president is spelled out as impeachment in the house and trial in the senate.

get a grip kerry.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[BuyingThyme]

11. Thank you.

[LittleClarkie]

13. If it does nothing else, it makes sure more people know what Bush is doing

Highlighting this issue is a good thing, I think.

[politicasista]

14. I think so too n/t

[Mass]

16. All of which, obviously, can be done in just a few weeks.

OK, guys. Do not do anything before impeachement is voted in the House and the Senate (with 67 votes in the Senate). Let's sit on out *ss and be silent. Because the only thing that matters is an impeachement that is not mathematically possible.

Let's Bush do everything he wants. Some DUers have told us so. May be they can give us their plan to have 67 votes in the Senate to impeach Bush and Cheney with 50 Democrats + Lieberman (assuming that the Articles of Impeachement get voted in the House).

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. If signing statements make a president impeachable...

... then you'd better be prepared to call for the retroactive impeachment of every president we've ever had.

Bush is impeachable, but not because he's ever used signing statements. He just misuses that authority like he does everything else.

So "get a grip" msongs. :eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. I love Sen. Kerry! Always have and always will! Proud to have voted for him in ' 04!

:bounce:

[WinkyDink]

18. There should be no such thing as "signing so I don't have to uphold my oath of office statements."

[paparush]

19. Bush's Response: {{{drumroll}}} EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!

Followed closely by unending refrains of "CLINTON DID IT!!"

[nam78_two]

25. K&R.nt

[OneBlueSky]

29. shouldn't they also specifically declare that the signing statements already issued . . .

have no legal standing and are null and void? . . .

[BlooInBloo]

30. Sheesh. And when the President signs this, what's he gonna do? Duh.

[tblue37]

31. Bush will just issue a signing statement to the effect that

he will ignore the law.

[Toots]

33. Too bad this could not have been done, say five years ago after the first hundred or so

:shrug:

[MessiahRp]

34. Now we're talking!

This is why I busted my ass for Kerry from Feb. 2003 until November 2004!

Rp

[buddhamama]

35. thank you, Senator Kerry

for standing up to the Cabal, protecting the Constitution and representing the American People. :thumbsup:

[wisteria]

36. Good to see that Senator Kerry and Specter are challenging Bush on this matter! n/t