livendive 8 #1 July 24, 2006 I know...total shocker, right? source Quote Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice. The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws. The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. "This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries." Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii. ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them. The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said. Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate. "Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws." Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions." The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice. The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #2 July 24, 2006 The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. Quote Ah, this statement defines the presidents primary responcibilbity and the way to protect erotions of power. Oh, I get it! It is only bad if a group disagrees with the presidents position A non-activist court has the final say. Thankfully, we are getting closer to a non-activist court that will overturn previous upheld bad law......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #3 July 24, 2006 QuoteThankfully, we are getting closer to a non-activist Right-wing rubber stamp court that will overturn previous upheld bad not dictated from the pulpits law...... There... I fixed it to what you REALLLLY meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #4 July 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteThankfully, we are getting closer to a non-activist Right-wing rubber stamp court that will overturn previous upheld bad not dictated from the pulpits law...... There... I fixed it to what you REALLLLY meant. Naww, you broke it. Tell me, do you think the eminat domain decision by the SC was right? Oh, and you don't now or will you ever have the slightest idea what I think or believe but I know a true liberal elitist think that they do...............am I talking about you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #5 July 24, 2006 I agree that it is unconstitutional to do that. A President's job is like a cop who may disagree with the law, but he has to enforce it. I find the "signing statement" bullshit to be nothing more than a line-item veto. That issue has been decided. Rushmc said, "this statement defines the presidents primary responcibilbity and the way to protect erotions of power." Well, the President's primary responsibility is as the chief executive. Congress passes laws. The Judiciary interprets laws. The Executive enforces laws. A president interpreting a law is unconstitutional on its face. Revise a law? That's called legislating, which is unconstitutional on its face. Disregard a law? That's called "A nation of a man." He's not a king. And Jeanne - is this the same court that smacked down Bush on the Gitmo stuff a few weeks ago? I'll tell you, I like this court. I like the court because of its reasoning methodology. I don't always like what the result is, but a lot of the justices who make rulings and holdings that make me politically happy are a travesty of reasoning. Like it or not, the justices you don't like have vastly better reasoned opinins that the ones you do like. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #6 July 24, 2006 QuoteI agree that it is unconstitutional to do that. A President's job is like a cop who may disagree with the law, but he has to enforce it. I find the "signing statement" bullshit to be nothing more than a line-item veto. That issue has been decided. Rushmc said, "this statement defines the presidents primary responcibilbity and the way to protect erotions of power." Well, the President's primary responsibility is as the chief executive. Congress passes laws. The Judiciary interprets laws. The Executive enforces laws. A president interpreting a law is unconstitutional on its face. Revise a law? That's called legislating, which is unconstitutional on its face. Disregard a law? That's called "A nation of a man." He's not a king. And Jeanne - is this the same court that smacked down Bush on the Gitmo stuff a few weeks ago? I'll tell you, I like this court. I like the court because of its reasoning methodology. I don't always like what the result is, but a lot of the justices who make rulings and holdings that make me politically happy are a travesty of reasoning. Like it or not, the justices you don't like have vastly better reasoned opinins that the ones you do like. Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #7 July 24, 2006 Quotereply] Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he signing most of the time.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #8 July 24, 2006 QuoteQuotereply] Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he signing most of the time. Now this is an inteligent responce."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #9 July 24, 2006 > nothing more than a line-item veto. A line-item veto if passed into law would be of great value to any president, and when it comes to keeping a growing budget in check the line-item veto is a good way to stop pork projects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #10 July 24, 2006 Quote > nothing more than a line-item veto. A line-item veto if passed into law would be of great value to any president, especially if they were physically responsible individuals when it comes to keeping a growing budget in check. Physically responsible? What does the President's physical fitness have to do with the budget? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #11 July 24, 2006 Good Catch, me fix it later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #12 July 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotereply] Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he signing most of the time. Now this is an inteligent responce. He doesn't though. ----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #13 July 24, 2006 It was passed into law. The Republican Congress gave it to Clinton in 1996. Clinton used it before it was declared unconstitutional. How's this for a court decision? Majority - Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg; Separate concurrence by Kennedy; Concurrence in part, dissent in part by Scalia, joined by O'Connor; and Dissent by Breyer, joined in part by Scalia and O'Connor. The court found that the line-item veto violates the specific provisions of the Constitution that describe how an Act is passed into law, which is to present an entire bill to the POTUS to sign or veto. It also gave legislative power to a POTUS, which is a violation of the separation of powers. As an aside, I understand that there's a line-item veto bill in House Committee right now that would allow a POTUS to put lines on hold and send legislation to Congress to strike the stuff he wants to veto. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #14 July 24, 2006 It's true that presidents, like Congressmen, don't know what's in most bills. They can get summaries from staff, etc. The appendix to the budget is I think around 1,300 pages. So, NO. He doesn't know what's in it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #15 July 24, 2006 QuoteIt's true that presidents, like Congressmen, don't know what's in most bills. They can get summaries from staff, etc. The appendix to the budget is I think around 1,300 pages. So, NO. He doesn't know what's in it. My point exactly! Someone, somewhere read it and saw that this is unconstitutional. Something like this is a serious issue. I am sure someone read it before giving it to Bush to sign. Hence, lets inform the president.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #16 July 24, 2006 Quote Oh, I get it! It is only bad if a group disagrees with the presidents position Yes, I'd prefer this sort of report from a less partisan group. I don't know how to read the comparisons to Clinton's history. Can't trust the ABA on it. In any event, it's still an example of the imperial presidency and yet another abuse by the executive branch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #17 July 24, 2006 Quote> nothing more than a line-item veto. A line-item veto if passed into law would be of great value to any president, and when it comes to keeping a growing budget in check the line-item veto is a good way to stop pork projects. Regular vetos accomplish this goal quite well. When a president goes over 5 years without veoing a spending bill, I'm not inclined to believe he'd do any better with a line item power. Lawrocket addressed the other concerns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #18 July 24, 2006 QuoteYes, I'd prefer this sort of report from a less partisan group. I don't know how to read the comparisons to Clinton's history. Can't trust the ABA on it. Plus, their song "Dancing Queen" really sucks. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Amazon 7 #3 July 24, 2006 QuoteThankfully, we are getting closer to a non-activist Right-wing rubber stamp court that will overturn previous upheld bad not dictated from the pulpits law...... There... I fixed it to what you REALLLLY meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #4 July 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteThankfully, we are getting closer to a non-activist Right-wing rubber stamp court that will overturn previous upheld bad not dictated from the pulpits law...... There... I fixed it to what you REALLLLY meant. Naww, you broke it. Tell me, do you think the eminat domain decision by the SC was right? Oh, and you don't now or will you ever have the slightest idea what I think or believe but I know a true liberal elitist think that they do...............am I talking about you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 July 24, 2006 I agree that it is unconstitutional to do that. A President's job is like a cop who may disagree with the law, but he has to enforce it. I find the "signing statement" bullshit to be nothing more than a line-item veto. That issue has been decided. Rushmc said, "this statement defines the presidents primary responcibilbity and the way to protect erotions of power." Well, the President's primary responsibility is as the chief executive. Congress passes laws. The Judiciary interprets laws. The Executive enforces laws. A president interpreting a law is unconstitutional on its face. Revise a law? That's called legislating, which is unconstitutional on its face. Disregard a law? That's called "A nation of a man." He's not a king. And Jeanne - is this the same court that smacked down Bush on the Gitmo stuff a few weeks ago? I'll tell you, I like this court. I like the court because of its reasoning methodology. I don't always like what the result is, but a lot of the justices who make rulings and holdings that make me politically happy are a travesty of reasoning. Like it or not, the justices you don't like have vastly better reasoned opinins that the ones you do like. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #6 July 24, 2006 QuoteI agree that it is unconstitutional to do that. A President's job is like a cop who may disagree with the law, but he has to enforce it. I find the "signing statement" bullshit to be nothing more than a line-item veto. That issue has been decided. Rushmc said, "this statement defines the presidents primary responcibilbity and the way to protect erotions of power." Well, the President's primary responsibility is as the chief executive. Congress passes laws. The Judiciary interprets laws. The Executive enforces laws. A president interpreting a law is unconstitutional on its face. Revise a law? That's called legislating, which is unconstitutional on its face. Disregard a law? That's called "A nation of a man." He's not a king. And Jeanne - is this the same court that smacked down Bush on the Gitmo stuff a few weeks ago? I'll tell you, I like this court. I like the court because of its reasoning methodology. I don't always like what the result is, but a lot of the justices who make rulings and holdings that make me politically happy are a travesty of reasoning. Like it or not, the justices you don't like have vastly better reasoned opinins that the ones you do like. Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #7 July 24, 2006 Quotereply] Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he signing most of the time.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #8 July 24, 2006 QuoteQuotereply] Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he signing most of the time. Now this is an inteligent responce."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #9 July 24, 2006 > nothing more than a line-item veto. A line-item veto if passed into law would be of great value to any president, and when it comes to keeping a growing budget in check the line-item veto is a good way to stop pork projects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #10 July 24, 2006 Quote > nothing more than a line-item veto. A line-item veto if passed into law would be of great value to any president, especially if they were physically responsible individuals when it comes to keeping a growing budget in check. Physically responsible? What does the President's physical fitness have to do with the budget? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #11 July 24, 2006 Good Catch, me fix it later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #12 July 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotereply] Do the statements really mean anything other than giving them (the presidents) an out or political wiggle room? In my statement I never meant that the president should invalidate a line or interpet a law. I did mean however, that if he had suspisions that a law might be unconstitutional he could make note of it (I know that if he believes the law unconstitutional he should maybe not sign it to begin with.) So, like you, I do not support a king either. Sorry for the confusion. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he signing most of the time. Now this is an inteligent responce. He doesn't though. ----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 July 24, 2006 It was passed into law. The Republican Congress gave it to Clinton in 1996. Clinton used it before it was declared unconstitutional. How's this for a court decision? Majority - Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg; Separate concurrence by Kennedy; Concurrence in part, dissent in part by Scalia, joined by O'Connor; and Dissent by Breyer, joined in part by Scalia and O'Connor. The court found that the line-item veto violates the specific provisions of the Constitution that describe how an Act is passed into law, which is to present an entire bill to the POTUS to sign or veto. It also gave legislative power to a POTUS, which is a violation of the separation of powers. As an aside, I understand that there's a line-item veto bill in House Committee right now that would allow a POTUS to put lines on hold and send legislation to Congress to strike the stuff he wants to veto. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 July 24, 2006 It's true that presidents, like Congressmen, don't know what's in most bills. They can get summaries from staff, etc. The appendix to the budget is I think around 1,300 pages. So, NO. He doesn't know what's in it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #15 July 24, 2006 QuoteIt's true that presidents, like Congressmen, don't know what's in most bills. They can get summaries from staff, etc. The appendix to the budget is I think around 1,300 pages. So, NO. He doesn't know what's in it. My point exactly! Someone, somewhere read it and saw that this is unconstitutional. Something like this is a serious issue. I am sure someone read it before giving it to Bush to sign. Hence, lets inform the president.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 July 24, 2006 Quote Oh, I get it! It is only bad if a group disagrees with the presidents position Yes, I'd prefer this sort of report from a less partisan group. I don't know how to read the comparisons to Clinton's history. Can't trust the ABA on it. In any event, it's still an example of the imperial presidency and yet another abuse by the executive branch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 July 24, 2006 Quote> nothing more than a line-item veto. A line-item veto if passed into law would be of great value to any president, and when it comes to keeping a growing budget in check the line-item veto is a good way to stop pork projects. Regular vetos accomplish this goal quite well. When a president goes over 5 years without veoing a spending bill, I'm not inclined to believe he'd do any better with a line item power. Lawrocket addressed the other concerns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 July 24, 2006 QuoteYes, I'd prefer this sort of report from a less partisan group. I don't know how to read the comparisons to Clinton's history. Can't trust the ABA on it. Plus, their song "Dancing Queen" really sucks. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
