Bush issues first signing statement since ‘06 elections.
Bush issues first signing statement since ‘06 elections.
Earlier this month, President Bush issued his first signing statement since his party lost control of Congress in the 2006 election, “reserving the right to bypass 11 provisions in a military appropriations bill under his executive powers.” Throughout his presidency, Bush has “quietly claimed the authority to disobey” hundreds of laws passed by Congress with signing statements, but with his party no longer controlling Congress, the president appears to have struck “a less aggressive tone” in an effort to avoid further controversy:
Analysts said the president’s less aggressive tone may be an effort to avoid reigniting a controversy that erupted last year after it came to light that Bush had used signing statements to challenge more laws than all previous presidents combined – including a torture ban. Congress held hearings about signing statements and the American Bar Association called for an end to them.
“They have clearly edited themselves,” said Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio who first analyzed the new statement on his blog Thursday. “They’ve taken out all the rhetoric about executive power.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto denied any “public relations” motivation behind the tone change, claiming that shorter signing statements are “just easier.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
P L E A S E … SOMEONE, ARREST THESE WAR CRIMINALS NOW!
December 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pmThe article linked to here repeatedly references the “muted tone” that Bush has struck with this signing statement. Whether the tone is muted matters nothing to me; it’s the fact that the president thinks he has the authority to ignore the law that’s troubling. Bush’s refusal to obey the laws of this country is, and should be, grounds for impeachment.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pmBush’s refusal to obey the laws of this country is, and should be, grounds for impeachment.
Comment by Jim — December 1, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
It is disgraceful that Bush wasn’t impeached years ago. Because Congress failed to check the runaway power of this would be despot, this country is now in a state of constitutional crisis.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmHow is a signing statement any different from a line item veto?
December 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pmAnd regarding the president and his constitutional authority, we have this oft-ignored gem in Article II, Section 3:
“…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
By signing a statement that says “I do not have to faithfully execute this law”, he is blatantly ignoring his oath of office. Impeachment is very much warranted, it is very much needed, it is very much long overdue.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pmHow is a signing statement any different from a line item veto?
Chris L
A Signing statement is a shiv in your back where you do not see it. A line item veto is a shiv to your heart where is is visible to all. Both are illegal and damaging to the Constitution. SCOTUS has declared the line item veto illegal but have not gotten around to do the same for the signing statement.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pmInteresting that most candidates including the Dems will not rule out signing statements. Specificlly HRC is in favor of retaining that perogative. Before I am slammed as a troll I am a progressive Dem.
Signing statements are illegal.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pmCongress would be nuts not to either challenge the signing statements in court – personal first choice – or pass a law banning them.
The law should not be necessary because the Constitution provides no authorization whatsoever for signing statements. But if a legal formulation to challenge the illegal action in court can’t be developed than a law should be.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm.
The ability of Bush to do this and many other things all starts with the Congress.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pmWhat’s the Congress ‘People’s representation assembly’ use if Congress cannot force the Executive Branch to live by written laws,and simply becomes a rubber stamp ?.
If you aren’t willing to challenge the President’s signing statements in the Supreme Court, then you are ALL talk. If you had a real leg to stand on, you would be litigating this already.
Piss and moan all you want, but the Prez is right to do this, when the Congress oversteps its bounds.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pm#8: The law should not be necessary because the Constitution provides no authorization whatsoever for signing statements. But if a legal formulation to challenge the illegal action in court can’t be developed than a law should be.
The problem is not that a legal formulation can’t be developed. It’s that Congress has been unwilling to mount such a challenge to the president’s authority. Which explains why Congress’s approval ratings are so dismal–most Americans want Congress to effectively check the President’s power.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm“… the president appears to have struck “a less aggressive tone†in an effort to avoid further controversy…”
Someoen seems to ahve misphrased this. Let me correct for ya.
“In his continuing efforts to further subvert democracy…”
There, all better!!!
December 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pmPiss and moan all you want, but the Prez is right to do this, when the Congress oversteps its bounds.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 1, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Yeah, Herr Hendler, that’s why he’s toned it down since his party lost control of Congress **cough… cough**
P*ssing and moaning??? We’re FINALLY getting around to your sole areas of expertise…
December 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pmImpeach, convict, and punish this worthless, spoiled, drunken, frat boy. This is ridiculous.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmI find it ironic that he calls the constitution a GD piece of paper and then makes signing statements to protect his interpretation of his constitutional power.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pmthis country is now in a state of constitutional crisis.
Comment by VerbalKint — December 1, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
We/ve been in a constititional crisis for 4 or 5 years now. It’s only getting acknowledged now. Ever since BigDick Cheney blew off the first subpoena w/ that one-of-a-kind sneer pasted to his face.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmWouldn’t that make his signing statements just GD pieces of paper too?
Do you think he’s signing them w/ a crayon?
December 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pmThroughout his presidency, Bush has “quietly claimed the authority to disobey†hundreds of laws passed by Congress with signing statements…..
It’s a subtle point but, I think, an important one that what Bush has done with these signing statements is not to declare his right to disobey these laws but to place himself and all future presidents above the law.
Signing statements have been used by previous presidents but not to this extent and not for this purpose. Only by the radical step of invoking the president’s rights under the theory of a “Unitary Executive” is this possible.
I know it’s hard to imagine but Bush isn’t the worst president we could conceivably have. Far worse is possible and acceptance, even tacit exceptance, of Unitary Executive power is an open invitation to a very bleak future.
It’s time for that theory to be debunked and legislative action taken to curtail the use of Presidential Signing Statements, both retroactively and for the future.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmThe worst thing to ever happen to this great nation was for the Fascist Pigs called Neo-Conservatives to gain control of all branches of the government. They hate government so how the hell do the red necked troglodytes think they will take care of business of government? People who support these thugs are knuckle dragging, bottom feeding, morons.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pmPiss and moan all you want, but the Prez is right to do this, when the Congress oversteps its bounds.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Excuse me dildo, but the Presnit has NO AUTHROITY to do anything of the like. The Constitution places the power of lawmaking into CONGRESS’ hands. Try reading the fu(king Constitution every once in a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
“The “vesting clause” grants all legislative authority to Congress.”
Each of the first three Articles of the Constitution concern one of the three branches of the federal government. The legislative branch is established under Article One, the executive branch under Article Two, and the judicial branch under Article Three.
The most important, take home point Dildo, is that the LAWS are made by the people’s representatives, and the PREZNIT has to follow them and execute them fatihfully. Not select what he will, or make his own laws.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pmARREST, IMPEACH, HANG.
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress [Republican controlled congress] in order to control “pork barrel spending” that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. [3][4]
However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
So is Rudy against signing statements? Is he pro-pork? What do the other candidates think?
December 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pmComment by Chris L: “How is a signing statement any different from a line item veto?”
In two ways. First, signing statements have the ability to fly under the radar. Bush was attaching these little poison darts to signed legislation for years before anyone figured out what was going on. Vetoes are very public.
I suppose you could call these signing statements “Stealth Vetoes”. That’s basically what they are.
Second, the line item veto isn’t legal any more. The Supreme Court struck it down during the Clinton Administration.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmPiss and moan all you want, but the Prez is right to do this, when the Congress oversteps its bounds.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Thats why he has a veto.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmDING, DING, DING GIVE THAT PERSON A CIGAR.
Signing statements have been used by previous presidents but not to this extent and not for this purpose. Only by the radical step of invoking the president’s rights under the theory of a “Unitary Executive†is this possible.
I know it’s hard to imagine but Bush isn’t the worst president we could conceivably have. Far worse is possible and acceptance, even tacit exceptance, of Unitary Executive power is an open invitation to a very bleak future.
It’s time for that theory to be debunked and legislative action taken to curtail the use of Presidential Signing Statements, both retroactively and for the future.
Comment by boreas
December 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmboreas,
I suppose you could call these signing statements “Stealth Vetoesâ€. That’s basically what they are.
More like Stealth LINE ITEM vetoes. This is the equation, and the one that will, hopefully, get the same decision from the SCOTUS.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pmYeah, don’t hold your breath with those fascists.
Comment by Bush is a TRAITOR: “DING, DING, DING GIVE THAT PERSON A CIGAR.
I don’t smoke and I haven’t seen Monica for years! :-)
December 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pmThe President of the United States has no power to nullify subpoenas from Congress ,If President George W. Bush continues to duck Congressional subpoenas against his current and former staff members he should be impeached.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pmPiss and moan all you want, but the Prez is right to do this, when the Congress oversteps its bounds.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 1, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Thanks, Hitler, I knew we could count on you to shit on the Constitution.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm29… while not a Hillary supporter, I would almost like to see her elected just to watch Jason and all the other trolls stroke out when she starts using signing statements and defending questionable acts with the words “Bush did it too”.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pmThere haven’t been any signing statements because he and the repugnantcons have vetoed any legislation that the democrats try to put forward.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pmCongress can only change the existing constitutional balance by passing an amendment, which must then be ratified by the states. Any attempt by congress to pass laws in violation of their constitutional powers can either be challenged in the Supreme Court by an injured party, or ignored by the Prez, forcing the Congress to bring suit in the Supreme Court.
I prefer the Supreme Court reviews these laws prior to injury to any US citizen, then after.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pmI prefer the Supreme Court reviews these laws prior to injury to any US citizen, then after.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 1, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
thanks for proving your ignorance of Constitutional law, Hitler. Good job. Sig heil!
December 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pmFrom the Boston Globe, October 11, 2007:
“Clinton vows to check executive power: Would curb use of signing statements”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/clinton_vows_to_check_executive_power/
We need to see it in action, but a candidate HAS stated that “she intends to roll back President Bush’s expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.”
“I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency,” Clinton told the Boston Globe’s editorial board.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler: “Congress can only change the existing constitutional balance by passing an amendment, which must then be ratified by the states.”
Um… nice try. It’s this assertion of Unitary Executive power which seeks to alter the constitutional balance. Legislation seeking to nullify that power and retroactively limit the use of signing statements would have the effect of restoring the balance as outlined in the Constitution.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pmThe rethugs in congress are telling the dems . . . we won’t give you
the votes to impeach, but look at it this way, it won’t be long before
you too can be above all laws.
And Nancy’s goin’ . . sounds good to me !
I’ll just make it clear from the get-go that impeachment is
‘not on the table’.
And in return for you setting us up to be above all laws we’ll go
ahead and give you whatever you ask for in the mean time.
So, in the words of I believe Lieutenant Hicks:
December 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pm‘We’ll blast off and nuke the site from orbit . . it’s the only way to be sure.’
Comment by Bush is a TRAITOR: “ARREST, IMPEACH, HANG.”
There’s a part of me that would like to see the governor who oversaw more executions than any other and the president with more innocent blood on his hands than any other swinging from the gallows………. but I’m opposed to the death penalty and feel I have to be true to that conviction, (pun intended).
What I’d like to see happen is his impeachment and removal from office. After that he’d be vulnerable, under US law, for arrest and prosecution as a war criminal. After we convict and sentence him he could be conveyed to the Hague so the rest of the world could have a crack at him.
That’s what I’d like to see but I have very little faith that any of it will ever happen.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmLast week, Republican White House hopeful John McCain denounced George W. Bush’s unprecedented use of presidential signing statements. As well he should. After all, it was President Bush’s December 30, 2005 signing statement on McCain’s amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act that made waterboarding and other acts of torture the continuing policy of the United States.
For the details, see:
December 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm“McCain, Betrayed by Bush, Rejects Signing Statements.”
#31: Any attempt by congress to pass laws in violation of their constitutional powers can either be challenged in the Supreme Court by an injured party, or ignored by the Prez, forcing the Congress to bring suit in the Supreme Court.
Not even George W. Bush is asserting that Congress has passed laws “in violation of their constitutional powers.” No one (except you) is claiming that. What Bush is claiming is that he is free to choose which laws he obeys and which ones he doesn’t, under his authority as Commander-in-Chief. There is no Constitutional provision for this claim, nor is there any legal precedent for your claim that laws “can be ignored” by the President. You’re simply inventing this entire line of argument.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pmPiss and moan all you want, but the Prez is right to do this, when the Congress oversteps its bounds.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 1, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
The Executive power allowing them to control a Congress that oversteps its bounds is called the veto. It is a very important, commonly used part of the power of the executive. You might want to read up on it.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pmCongress can only change the existing constitutional balance by passing an amendment, which must then be ratified by the states. Any attempt by congress to pass laws in violation of their constitutional powers can either be challenged in the Supreme Court by an injured party, or ignored by the Prez, forcing the Congress to bring suit in the Supreme Court.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 1, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
How can the Congress pass laws in violation of their constitutional powers to pass laws? If a law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the Supreme Court can slap it down until the Constitution is amended. If a President doesn’t like a law, he can veto it, which can in turn be overridden by a 2/3rds majority in Congress. It is impossible for the passing of a law to be in violation of the Congress’s power to pass laws. It is only possible for them to pass an unconstitutional law, which is not a violation of their constitutional powers to pass laws. It is up to the Judicial to determine if a passed law is actually unconstitutional.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:39 pmComment by Chris L: “How is a signing statement any different from a line item veto?â€
Earlier I wrote: “In two ways.”
In addition to the fact that line item vetoes have been declared unconstitutional and that signing statements don’t necessarily come to light unless someone looks for them, there’s a third difference which is perhaps the most important.
Vetoes (the constitutional sort) can be overridden. Signing statements can’t.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmTime to IMPEACH Bush and His Crooks.
If you don’t have a copy yet, get Naomi Wolf’s End of America, which is a frightening description of how the Bush administration and its illegal actions matches the 10 Steps of a Fascist regime. It will frighten anyone who is horrified about what Bush has done to our great Constitution. Get a copy and share with your friends.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:44 pmFor supposed ’strict constructionists’ this bunch sure goes outside the Constitution a lot.
Executive Privilege, not in the Constitution
December 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pmState Secrets, not in the Constitution
Signing Statements, not in the Constitution
War Declarations, not vested in oval office.
Faith Based Initiatives, violate First Amendment
Unlawful domestic spying, violate Fourth Amendment
No Right to an Attorney, speedy trial, confront witnesses, know charges, etc violate Fifth & Sixth Amendments.
Torture violates Eighth Amendment
They still violate the meaning of the law.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pmLawlessness!
#43
For supposed ’strict constructionists’ this bunch sure goes outside the Constitution a lot.
Executive Privilege, not in the Constitution
State Secrets, not in the Constitution
Signing Statements, not in the Constitution
War Declarations, not vested in oval office.
Faith Based Initiatives, violate First Amendment
Unlawful domestic spying, violate Fourth Amendment
No Right to an Attorney, speedy trial, confront witnesses, know charges, etc violate Fifth & Sixth Amendments.
Torture violates Eighth Amendment
Comment by Turk Meister
Add to that:
December 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pmCorporate Personhood and all the rights and privileges that goes with it…NOT in the Constitution
Congress can contest any signing statement in the courts. The Republicans contested one or more of Clintons signing statements. How many of Bushs signing statements over these past 7 years are being contested by the Democratic Congress in the courts?
As for the lack of 2007 signing statements, well, the Democratic Congress has pretty much capitulated on every bill when Bush threatened to veto it, which he rarely did when the Republicans were in control, so there has been no need for signing statements.
The Democratic leadership is a joke. Just look at the The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 that just passed 405-6 in the House. The Democrats are just Republicans with a different name and flavour.
Vote Ron Paul or Kucinich, if you vote at all, they are the only 2 guys who seem to be not controlled by the establishment controlling most of the Dems and Republicans. Even if you do not agree with them on every issue, and I don’t, but Congress is unlikely to let them push through all of their domestic policy initiatives, and neither of these 2 guys would be getting us into anymore wars. Hearing a President speak a little Truth now and then will be a nice change after 8 years of living with Lies.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:09 pmEasier, perhaps, but still just as wrong.
Besides, it should be the courts and not the president that rules on the legality of the various provisions written into law. The line item veto has been declared unconstitutional and these signing statements are just another form of line item veto. The legal remedy for this is a veto that would put the issue back in the hands of Congress. Bush needs to start operating within the framework of the Constitution.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pmTrolls who defend this president abuse of powers will be screaming like stuck pigs if a democraatic president asserts similar powers.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:07 pmWell, I was going to post an answer to you, Hendler, but it looks like everybody has already slapped down your ignorant posts.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 amThe scariest thing about this dictator is that congress has the power to justifiably impeach Bush, but refuses to use that power.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 amTaking impeachment off the table could be a dem. strategy of “give Bush plenty of rope and he will hang the entire republican party.” However, this could backfire on the Dems., by the voters viewing the Dems. as lilly-livered and too whimpy to do the jobs they were elected to do. That also applies to the republicans in congress.
I would give Congress an extra $100 dollars as a citizen for legal fees to take this bullshit up the ladder to the supreme court.
Come on Congress – do it -
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm