GOP congressman bucks Bush on signing statements.
By on May 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
GOP congressman bucks Bush on signing statements.
President Bush has issued an “unprecedented number” of signing statements during his tenure. Today, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced “the Presidential Signing Statements Act” in an effort to provide some oversight of these practices. “To enable a more complete public understanding of our nation’s laws, the U.S. Congress should also be able to call for the executive’s explanation of the meaning and justification for a presidential signing statement,” Jones said. The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing notes that Jones’s bill “might provide House Democrats with nice fodder for more public excoriation of the Bush administration’s alleged hubris and secrecy.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
How about NO MORE SIGNING STATEMENTS AND ERASE THE ONES bush ALREADY SIGNED.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pmLet’s not get overly enthralled with Rep Jones. After all, he was the driving force to change the House cafeteria’s nomenclature of French fries to freedom fries.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pmAny degree of accountibility would be welcome from the current regime, but I’m not holding my breath.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pmJones has shown what a reasonable and responsible Republican in Congress should look and act like, actually cognizant of that “GD piece of paper” (yeah, the one we call the US Constitution).
Gives me hope.
That maybe someday there will be two. Or three.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pmYes, the Democrats in Congress need fodder, having failed UTTERLY and COMPLETELY in creating fodder of their own. Why, on signing statements they’ve done about nothing at all, not even hold any of those oh so riveting staged hearings to conduct what they like to believe is “oversight.”
But now, we have Republicans (no doubt worried about reelection based on the rise and decline of the Unitary Executive) trying to reign it in (somewhat) or at least tell Congress why the Unitary Executive issued what it did. Amazing.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pmIt is my belief that there are probably some respectable Republicans in Congress who hate what Bush is doing as much as the Democrats. However, they have to toe the party line or else their political lives will be very short.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm#2 -
Thanks for bringing me back into the real world. Forgot about the great potato caper….
Man, it’s scary out there in wingnutville.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pmHooray for Jones! For those of you who don’t know this guy, he’s a former Dem, turned GOP at the time of Gingrich’s revolution in 1994.
He has a rather conservative voting record, and initially supported the invasion of Iraq. He is probably most famous for “freedom fries” instead of french fries in the congressional cafeteria. He has, however, come to regret his initial support for the war (he has even joined with Dennis Kucinich in introducing legislation calling for withdrawal), and wishes that the freedom fries thing “had never happened.”
He is more libertarian than neocon, and is a Ron Paul supporter. His voting record, while still fairly conservative, contains some surprising defections from his own party, such as siding with Democrats on the issues of raising the minimum wage and holding Bolton and Meiers in contempt.
It doesn’t surprise me that he wants some accountability and oversight where Bush’s signing statements are concerned.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pmIt’s a Republican who is pushing this bill.
They’re just trying to close the loophole that gave the President unlimited power before the presidency goes to the Democrats.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pmmisshusseinmolly Says –May 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
That’s a pretty acurate portrayal of Rep. Jones. Are you from NC?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:11 pmIsn’t this just a little late in the game? He just realized how many signing statements there have been ? What about all the other abuse of law this administration has done?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pmI hope this bill comes to the floor for a full and rigorous debate. I would like to see Republicans (even the ones who don’t face re-election this year) explain why there is no problem with Bush’s signing statements. Not signing statements in general, just the ones Bush has signed. I would like to hear them explain why it is not unconstitutional for a president to sign a statement saying that he would not enforce the law he just signed, when the constitution clearly states that the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Wait, let me get my popcorn, first. This ought to be good.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pmNot impressed. Bush has been adding signing statements for seven years. No Republican tried to do anything about it until six months before an election that will sweep every R in a competitive district out of office and expose some supposedly safe districts to serious opposition. This sounds more like self-preservation than responsible government. Alternatively, since the Republican minority can be counted on to be less tolerant of executive power as of 1/20/09 should a Democrat win, think of this as a preemptive effort to erode executive power.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pmWow. He’s on fire!!!
It has only taken, what? Seven and a half YEARS of signing statements to move him to introduce this bill…??
IMO – wa-a-a-a-a-ay too little, wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay too late.
Perhaps he’s trying to curry favor and ‘redeem’ himself before the November election sweeps every GOoPer out of office…good luck with that!
May 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pmBut if we end signing statements, then the president has to do what congress tells him to when they have the right.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:19 pmWhy isn’t someone calling for the law to be followed about congress creating laws, the president enforcing them? Someone has forgotten as they are doing it the other way around.
I agree with Adam 10; no doubt at all we will see deep regret about laws misused by the party that may no longer be. Good on Bob Barr. He has flip flopped enough to be a libertarian now. He and Ron Paul can fight it out for the sane conservative and batshit crazy wing of the publicans. The rest are just greedy. They can’t live without pork and we can send them to any of their new bases in the Muslim world. Nice watching them dig their own holes.
Could you please rename this bill the:
Gut the stinking_fish_unitary_executive bill
May 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pmOne could always hope that this is indeed a true patriot recognizing his duty to the country. However, we saw little of that from this batch of Republicans. (Sorry Miss Molly but renaming French Fries as Freedom Fries does not engender a lot of faith in how sane this man is.) It could be that the Republicans want to raise the issue and put in place blocking legislation that will tie up the next (Democratic) president. As you know, Democrats will obey the law whilst Republicans will not.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pmI have to agree, this is a self serving move, where has he been the last few years?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:23 pmMaybe – just maybe – we might get our Constutional government back. The repubs rats are simply trying to create the impression that they have been fighting the signing statements the entire 7+ years – they haven’t. The canary’s are starting to sign. They are starting to sing so any future investigations might not get aimed at themselves. This is another example of the weakness and cowardice of the republican brand. They back the president on illegal behavior, then turn against him when it might keep them out of jail. Cowards all of them. If the signing statements were appropriate, why distance yourself from them?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pmThe canary’s are starting to sign
S/B Canary’s are starting to ’sing’.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pm“To enable a more complete public understanding of our nation’s laws, the U.S. Congress should also be able to call for the executive’s explanation of the meaning and justification for a presidential signing statement,” Jones said.
Uhhhh , I already understand that the “Decider” has broken numerous laws , along with his garbage administration ; maybe it is you and the rest of Congress that needs to understand our laws better , along with the tool of impeachment ……..
May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pmGood grief, such a lot of housecleaning to be done in January 2009 ! The Dems will be busy.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pmThe canary’s are starting to sign.
They can sign all the signing statements they want, they won’t be any more constitutional than the ones Bush signed. :)
(I know, it was a typo. I was just having fun.)
May 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pmOh, just in time!!!! Eight years too late!!! Now that is republican leadership!!!!
They know they are going to lose the White House and all of a sudden they are interested in some sort of oversight.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pmthe Decider! yesss, you said it and it always makes me laugh! Cause he’s the decider! what an idiot!
May 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pmOFF TOPIC, but oh so funny…
GOP’s New Slogan Already Being Used To Market Anti-Depressant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/gops-new-slogan-already-b_n_101376.html
May 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pmtaxaslady, you know how it when it’s time to take out the trash. Spring cleaning is a dirty job but someone’s gotta do it.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pmtexaslady Says:
Good grief, such a lot of housecleaning to be done in January 2009 ! The Dems will be busy.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Maybe we can call one of those disaster clean-up businesses. You know, the ones who say, “Like it never happened.”
May 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pmRep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced “the Presidential Signing Statements Act” in an effort to provide some oversight of these practices.
Translation: A Democratic President will be in charge in Jan 09 and we need to stop him from doing what Bush has been doing.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pmSo, Bush will explain:
“I wanted to do it, so I did it. All explained.”
Signing statements need to be banned outright – they amount to nothing but immunity of the Presidency from accountability for criminal acts committed and/or contemplated.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:39 pmToo little and way too late, Jones.
Where the hell have you been the last 7 years?
Oh, yeah, mostly supporting Chimpy, like a good lil Republinut. Freedom fries anyone?
Hannity’s comment on this: “It’s Al Gore’s fault.”
May 12th, 2008 at 5:39 pmBuckie Boy Says:
Translation: A Democratic President will be in charge in Jan 09 and we need to stop him from doing what Bush has been doing.
Careful there or RHF will be calling you a c**t too for assuming the next President will be He and not She.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pmheh
Explanation (one size fits all):
1. Separation of powers
2. Unitary Executive
3. National Security
4. Because we can.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pmStratRat Says:
The canary’s are starting to sign
S/B Canary’s are starting to ’sing’.
No offense, but it should be “The canaries are starting to sing.”
Although they might be well-trained deaf canaries that can sign to one another.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pmThey’ll pass this as law – then Bush will add a signing statement to it.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pmAdam Brown Says:
They’re just trying to close the loophole that gave the President unlimited power before the presidency goes to the Democrats.
Excellent point. And…..he’s up for re-election.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:23 pm“Adam Brown Says:
It’s a Republican who is pushing this bill.
They’re just trying to close the loophole that gave the President unlimited power before the presidency goes to the Democrats.”
Bingo! Always triple check a Republicans motives. These lying fascist neo-cons have proven over and over again they are not to be trusted.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:18 pmthere is no basis in the Constitution for signing statements. They are patently illegal with no standing. Any executive department entity enforcing a signing statement instead of the actual law should be arrested and tried for criminal activity.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:23 pm.
gummitch Says:
StratRat Says:
The canary’s are starting to sign
S/B Canary’s are starting to ’sing’.
No offense, but it should be “The canaries are starting to sing.”
Although they might be well-trained deaf canaries that can sign to one another.
Or maybe they’re trying to make their own statement.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pmThere’s nothing wrong with signing statements, per se. The concept was to make notes pr comments when laws were signed off.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:51 pmThe problem is that Dubya and his fellow fools think and claim that they can overwrite the passed legislation and declare that this is the ‘real’ law. His inept legal team should be thrown in jail along with the other perps when the time comes, soon I hope.
Not that surprising. Walter Jones drove up to DC for the Dems war hearings many months ago and was the only republican to do so (he drives from NC because he cannot afford airfare from PGV). He is a libertarian and will listen to the ‘average’ voter and has a great office locally.
He has also called the Iraq war a ‘waste’ in private in mid 2007 ( in a private conversation at a public event ).
He has distanced himself from the french fry ridiculousness.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pmToo little, too late–throw the bum out!
May 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pmSince it is **JUST** as law and not a Constitutional Amendment, Congress can pass the law and Shrub can nullify it with a signing statement. Shrub can even classify the signing statement so that no one can know it exists.
I’m highly suspicious that this is just show. Either that, or the good Congressman is as dumb as a rock.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:05 pmSigning statements mean NOTHING! They do NOT have the force of law. Bush is just deluding himself when he issues signing statements. Stating that the Executive branch will construe one provision this way and another provision that way is silly talk. It would be like the Supreme Court handing down an opinion and saying that no future court could cite that ruling as precedent. (That too is silly talk.)
A bill that is passed into law ultimately means what only the words in the law say, as decided, if necessary, by the Judicial branch. What the president states does not erase or alter any provision in any law or construe it to mean what he says it to mean. It is folly!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:21 pmGreat! So after years of ’signing statement’ abuse, a Republican is only now standing up to oppose it? How convenient; just in time to affect a new Democratic president next year.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pmWow…just in the nick of time…it will save us from 7 more months of signing statements. Too bad it can not be retroactive.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pmjnibert Says:
“… It would be like the Supreme Court handing down an opinion and saying that no future court could cite that ruling as precedent.”
I’m hoping this is meant to be funny. I mean, you ARE aware that the Supreme Court has been doing this, right? Just checking…
Move along, these are not the droids you’re looking for.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:43 ammeaning and justification
Gee Dubya replies,
“Because I says so, get over it”
May 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pmDefending the indefensable,
GW Bush- “I’m the commander. See, I don’t need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
May 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pmArguing with them is the same as arguing with your cat. They will scratch, they will hiss, and even on their best days they still, for reasonssohbet unbeknown to the rest of us, pee on your carpet. Hoekstra et al are racist thugs. They will not understand a document as important at the one reported Bedava mp3 indirby the A.P. What this document has said is that for years, words like Jihadists, Islamic Terrorism, Islamic Extremism etccet have done nothing but castigate Muslim men and women.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:06 am