http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement
I confess that, until today, I never knew about these Signing Statements (except for the "rhetorical" ones).
What I’m requesting is that all you more politically-astute folks weigh in on this, so that I can listen to your arguments, and form an opinion.
My initial reaction is that they represent a way for the Executive Branch to evade allowing enforcement of legislation that the President does not approve, but, for some reason, does not want to veto. That is, that they represent a de facto line-item veto, which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.
Here are some other background articles that I found—
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20060113.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/24/constitutional_license.php
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
Thanking you all in advance...
Originally posted by vistesdQuite frankly, I had never heard of them until yesterday. My opinion is that they don't matter at all; Bush can write anything he pleases but it is the actions of the Executive Branch which will be held to account. The Courts look to Congressional intent in judging what is required by the laws it passes; the Executive Branch has no power to ignore what Congress passes unless they challenge it in court as unconstitutional - laws can't be simply ignored by those who have the responsibility to enforce them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement
I confess that, until today, I never knew about these Signing Statements (except for the "rhetorical" ones).
What I’m requesting is that all you more politically-astute folks weigh in on this, so that I can listen to your arguments, and form an opinion.
My initial reaction is that they represent a way ...[text shortened]... http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
Thanking you all in advance...
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the Executive Branch is defined as carrying out the will of the President. If that is the case then his immunity could be seen to transfer to their actions.
Quite frankly, I had never heard of them until yesterday. My opinion is that they don't matter at all; Bush can write anything he pleases but it is the actions of the Executive Branch which will be held to account. The Courts look to Congressional intent in judging what is required by the laws it passes; the Executive Branch has no power to ignore what C ...[text shortened]... itutional - laws can't be simply ignored by those who have the responsibility to enforce them.
I brought this up a while back in relation to a new law about Guantanamo Bay and nobody listened.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat "immunity" do you think the President has?
But the Executive Branch is defined as carrying out the will of the President. If that is the case then his immunity could be seen to transfer to their actions.
I brought this up a while back in relation to a new law about Guantanamo Bay and nobody listened.
Here is a bit from the text of the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006.
(6) The Supreme Court’s reliance on presidential signing statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases, such as Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 719 n.1 (1986), the Supreme Court has relied on presidential signing statements as a source of authority, while in other cases, such as the recent military tribunals case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), it has conspicuously declined to do so. This inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the interpretation of federal law unpredictable.
I'm no expert, but this seems bad.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperI don't believe that the Supreme Court in Bowsher v. Synar "relied" on the presidential signing statement at all. Here's footnote 1 in full:
Here is a bit from the text of the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006.
(6) The Supreme Court’s reliance on presidential signing statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases, such as Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 719 n.1 (1986), the Supreme Court has relied on presidential signing statements as a source of authority, while ...[text shortened]... nterpretation of federal law unpredictable.
I'm no expert, but this seems bad.
TheSkipper
In his signing statement, the President expressed his view that the Act was constitutionally defective because of the Comptroller General's ability to exercise supervisory authority over the President. Statement on Signing H. J. Res. 372 Into Law, 21 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 1491 (1985).
The president's view, while ultimately accepted by the Court, was not deemed correct because he said so. Rather the Court made a detailed evaluation of the seperation of powers argument based on constitutional principles and text. Thus, the signing statement was not given any weight as "authority". No statement of anyone, except the members of Congress who passed the law, should or are given as "authority" for Congressional intent.