Why doesn't Bush just use one of his signing statements instead of a veto?

[Stanchetalarooni]

I never understood this signing statement stuff. Can anyone illuminate me?

[arcane1]

1. the veto threat is better PR

because it lets the repubes claim the Dems are "witholding money from the troops on the front lines" and other such non-sense

(edited for spelling)

[EstimatedProphet]

2. Sssshhhh! Don't give him any ideas!

[PRETZEL]

3. my own personal opinion is that

it would have the appearance of a Dem. victory because the signing statements haven't been as widely publicized as the bills have. thus even though the signing statement (which may in and of themselves be illegal) it would give the Dem's the appearance of a victory. And we all know this little SOB will have none of that.

[Igel]

4. It may be because he believes that the troop-withdrawal

deadline is Constitutional.

Or it may be because he doesn't want to have a fight about it. Simply vetoing the language disposes of it legally in a way that declaring it unconstitutional and hence ignorable does not.

Signing statements have a bunch of different kinds of statements in them, not every one has every kind. Some statements declare that something is simply unconstitutional, and hence not to be enforced; presidents have been doing this since time immemorial, and you get individuals doing the same thing and taking the government to court. Some statements declare *how* something is going to be enforced: Sometimes it points out a word is ambiguous and there is a nasty consequence given pre-existing statutes if a word is interpreted one way--and then stipulates that it will be interpreted in the *other* way. Sometimes it simply says how the executive branch is going to interpret the law not because of any particular consequence, but because the bill contains some ambiguity.

This does a number of things. For one, it tells the courts how the guy signing the bill into law interpreted it. Given that how a single legislator presented a bill--or material entered into the record after the debates ended and the bill was passed--can impact the courts, the signing statements should also have an effect. Note that if the signer rejects an interpretation, it might well imply that he'd have vetoed the bill, and that would have required a lot of Congressfolk to vote to override the veto. Any president is part of the legislative process. Consider it a kind of mild oversight.

Some have said the Executive enforces, but does not interpret, the law. This is blatantly false. Members of the Legislative branch give their interpretation; the Executive looks at the text and has to figure out how to enforce it--and that's an interpretation. Then if people don't like the Executive's interpretation, the courts have the final say; ultimately interpretation is their jurisdiction. They rely on the text and others' interpretations, sometimes taking one side, sometimes neither side.

I expect some of the laws affected by signing statements to wind up in court, if people can find standing. The signing statements do *not* have the force of law any more than the Congressional Record does. Hence if * signs the bill, somebody might well take to court any executive interpretation ignoring Congress' edict to withdrawal from Iraq.

[DrDan]

5. the only thing that is keeping his 29% together is his

his appearance of being "resolute" in his war on terror.

Signing this, after all his bluster the past few weeks, would never sit well with the lemmings.