It’s about time there was an open public debate on the constituionality as well as the ramifications of Bush’s extensive use of signing statements to ignore laws legally passed by the legislature. How can there be checks and balances if one branch of governement ignores the actions of the others?
The murmurs of discontent are finally becoming screams of outrage.
The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.
In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.
Is this a real issue? Should we allow the President in the “9-11 World” to act as he likes on whatever parts of law he feels comfortable complying with? Is Bush acting within the powers of his office, or is he acting in contempt of the Consitution? He is obviously violating the spirit of the document, but is what he doing actually illegal?
Click here to see the full text of one of Bush’s signing statements. For a really big laugh, I’d like to see Bush go through his own signing statement thoroughly and explain it to us in detail, without reading from a script written by his legal advisers. We could record the video and sell it in the comedy genre to help pay off the national debt, and it could be translated for sale abroad to help offset our foreign trade deficit.
This video might even set the record for the world’s longest blooper — it could truly be comedy gold! I think we may have overlooked the President’s talent to entertain us with his words, but it’s not too late if we act now.
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about precedent. Just because someone did something before me does not give me the justification (it may give me the privilege) to do any such thing.
If a thing is wrong, it’s wrong.
I repeat my analogy: would you excuse poor sexual performance by comparing it with that of the men who slept with your lady previously? It’s easy to use precedent to exuse present wrongdoing.
My country, right or wrong; when right, support it; when wrong, correct it.
Alix, I agree with you. Unfortunately, lawyers and the judiciary have this thing about precedence. To them it is all important in determining the application of the law. When a bi-partisan sub-committee of the American Bar Association determines that the precedents are wrongly applied, then it is time to notice.
America, love it or leave it. And if you don’t love America enough to make this a better place, then please leave.
Ironically, Bush is cutting his own throat on the issue.
The idea of a “signing statement” is to describe the “frame of mind” of the president when he signed it. This is useful when the courts become involved in interpreting the law, as historically the judges involved have turned to their opinion of the lawmaker’s frame of mind at the time the law was written. That is, when there is vaguery in the law they look to what they think the writers meant when they wrote it.
Bush calls these judges “Activist Judges” and declares that they need to be done away with — that they are a scourge on the country.
When Nino Scalia reads a law that says “Torture is illegal” and there’s a signing statement saying “I don’t think it applies to me” he’s going to say, “The law says no torture, so no torture. I don’t give a rat what the author thought at the time.”
#22…Smartalix….the anology is getting old, you’ve used it way to many times….lol
Precedent is precedent, it dosen’t always mean that something is right or wrong, just that it’s been done before and seemed to work.
#23…..Mr. Fusion….you always like to tell me that my sources are suspect because they aren’t on your approved reading list….well, citing the ABA for anything in regards to a sitting Republican President is in the same league. I mean lets get real here, this is the group that admits there are almost no conservatives on it’s excutive board and is the Union if you were of the trial lawyers who donate millions to the left and the Liberals. It’s like asking the Chef to give himself a Michelin star.
#24….Sagrilarus….you made the real point of this issue. Only according to the article, the courts hardly ever look at the supporting or non-supporting statements, even the ones a President offers.
He can write anything he wants, the real test is if he ever actually tries to ignore a law or the part he dosen’t like. And that hasn’t happened.
#25 joshua: “He can write anything he wants, the real test is if he ever actually tries to ignore a law or the part he dosen’t like. And that hasn’t happened.” (emphasis mine)
That’s an interesting assertion, but some of the more worrisome “disclaimers” in his signing statements are those regarding policies that would be carried out in greatest possible secrecy, such as his claim to retain the constitutional authority to sanction torture at his discretion.
You continue to have faith, but I lost it long ago.
As a union leader I see Mr. Bush spectrum in all spheres of US gov. For example, postal managers, postal inspectors, and other maladies act like they will always be protected from their contractual and labor laws that they abuse and infringe. It is the government abuse all over. Should be impeached and prosecuted.
The President hasn’t issued 800 signing statements. It’s about 130. The 800 number comes from a grad student, and even he isn’t sure of the right number, even though it’s his thesis! He doesn’t know because it’s not the number of signing statements that he counted, but how many laws get affected by them or something like that.
Could someone post a link to some of these signing statements so people can get a better idea?
Here’s the top ten list. To keep the discussion on the issue, let’s pretend these ten are the only ones he ever made, okay?
Ishmael,
That’s an excellent point. Not only is Bush a wastrel fool who uses the rules to defend himself instead of serving the public, he provides a shining example (and justification) for idiots, poltroons, dolts, and general assholes everywhere.