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.

Could someone post a link to some of these signing statements so people can get a better idea?

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.

#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.

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.”

America, love it or leave it. And if you don’t love America enough to make this a better place, then please leave.

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.

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.

It’s been fairly widely reported that Bush has used more signing statements than all other presidents before him… COMBINED!

I’ll just do a quick fact-check that so you can’t accuse me of bias:

[quote]An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the U.S. constitution by issuing more than 800 signing statements to highlight provisions of laws he might not enforce, more than every previous U.S. president combined.[/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400887.html

From my observation of Bush, I assume he is misusing a provision in that law that probably is helpful, if used judiciously. Bush, not known to worry about setting bad precedence, has just gone wild with it.

So now it has to be challenged in court, when, if Bush had used better judgment, he could have used it now-and-again.

But it really isn’t a real issue. All he is doing is what all the other Presidents have done. Picked out parts of a law that he feels may be unconstitutional and mentioning that in the statements. No where does he ever say that the law will not be obeyed. The article even mentions that if the law or parts of it are challengened in court, the Judge may not even read the statements.

Specter has his shorts in a bunch for whatever reason and God knows the ABA always follows the law explicitaly(tongue firmly planted in cheek)

If a ruler is not subject to the law, or can bypass the law just because he feels that it’s his prerogative, doesn’t that make him something closer to ‘king’?

Suppose for a moment that a president exempted himself, by virtue of a signing document, from paying taxes. Who reviews and approves that so it is a legal document?

BTW, I love the example that was given by dummy #8 above, showing that presidents have signed this type of document before. The example given is that of a president signing a document that says “I do not have to enforce unconstitutional laws” . Compare that to the current discussion, where the president is basically saying “I do not have to follow the laws established by the Constitution.” Big, big difference, (exaclty opposite?) and a good example of how some people are willing to twist words to fit their own agenda.