LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Signing Statements: use and misuse

Ulaven_Demorte

Ulaven_Demorte

Non-Prophet Organization
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
30,016
While doing a bit of research into presidential signing statements I ran across a rather interesting article written by John W. Dean this past January.

Link

"Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part."
Click to expand...


I am anxiously waiting for Congress to address this issue. President Bush, at the last count I saw several months ago had issued signing statements on over 750 Bills he signed into law (one of which was a signing statement nullifying the torture ban brought forward by John McCain). Mr. Bush has issued more of these signing statements than every other president combined.

"Bush, who has been pushing the envelope on presidential powers, is just beginning to learn what kind of Congressional blowback can result.

First, there are the leaks: People within the Executive branch become troubled by a president's overreaching. When Nixon adopted extreme measures, people within the administration began leaking. The same is now happening to Bush, for there was the leak about the use of torture. And, more recently, there was the leak as to the use of warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans.

Once the leaks start, they continue, and Congressional ire is not far behind. The overwhelming Congressional support for Senator John McCain's torture ban suggests, too, that Congress will not be happy if leaks begin to suggest the President - as his signing statement foreshadows - is already flouting the ban."
Click to expand...

Note that this was written shortly after the first couple of leaks, regarding the torture of Prisoners, and the domestic wiretapping program. The prediction of more numerous and frequent leaks is certainly turning out to be true. Congress has also recently started questioning the use of these signing statements.
 
Last edited:
This always struck me as unbelievably egotistical.

Like signing something in and just writing "NOT!" in the margins wherever you wanted.
 
I have a lot of respect for John Dean both as a lawyer and a person.

And I agree with him on this subject.
 
wazhazhe said:
I have a lot of respect for John Dean both as a lawyer and a person.

And I agree with him on this subject.
Click to expand...

I notice none of the usual cheerleaders are coming to dispute his statements either.
 
Unless John Dean has a foot long cock and you post pics this thread will die.

The No Political threads on Saturday at 10 PM rule is in effect.

So is the Swing out Sister rule.
 
Killswitch said:
Unless John Dean has a foot long cock and you post pics this thread will die.

The No Political threads on Saturday at 10 PM rule is in effect.

So is the Swing out Sister rule.
Click to expand...

Rules? We don't need no stinking rules!
I issued a signing statement to the no politics after 10pm on Saturday rule.
 
Killswitch said:
Unless John Dean has a foot long cock and you post pics this thread will die.

The No Political threads on Saturday at 10 PM rule is in effect.

So is the Swing out Sister rule.
Click to expand...

What's the "Swing out Sister" rule?
 
Dean misuses the analogy and then flogs it beyond all sense. Oh, and Clinton v New York was 1998, not 1988. So much for Dean's vaunted legal mind.
 
Gringao said:
Dean misuses the analogy and then flogs it beyond all sense. Oh, and Clinton v New York was 1998, not 1988. So much for Dean's vaunted legal mind.
Click to expand...

Explain the misuse. Rather than make a statement and leave nothing to back it up explain your position.

re: 1988 vs 1998.. Oh no, a typo refutes the entire article.

"From the nature of the Constitution," George Washington said, "I must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto."
 
Last edited:
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Explain the misuse. Rather than make a statement and leave nothing to back it up explain your position.

re: 1988 vs 1998.. Oh no, a typo refutes the entire article.
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't add credibility to Dean's depth of knowledge when a lowly engineer corrects him on a basic fact.

The line-item veto found unconstitutional (properly, I think) was for spending items only, not regarding how the Executive could exercise its power. When Congress starts to intrude on constitutional powers of the Executive or enacting legislation that it has no power to enact, the Executive is right to refuse to obey it. It doesn't need a court ruling.
 
Gringao said:
It certainly doesn't add credibility to Dean's depth of knowledge when a lowly engineer corrects him on a basic fact.

The line-item veto found unconstitutional (properly, I think) was for spending items only, not regarding how the Executive could exercise its power. When Congress starts to intrude on constitutional powers of the Executive or enacting legislation that it has no power to enact, the Executive is right to refuse to obey it. It doesn't need a court ruling.
Click to expand...

the Executive branch's options when faced with a bill it feels parts of are unconstitutional are laid out, the President can veto the bill and send it back to the congress who has the option of overriding the veto. If the president's veto is overridden he can call for the judiciary to review the law to determine it's constitutionality.
Issuing a signing statement, as Mr. Bush has done over 750 times to negate a portion or ALL of a bill as it relates to his position as Commander in Chief is using that signing statement exactly as one would use a line item veto on any other bill.

According to the decision handed down in 1998 in Clinton vs. New York the Congress must amend the Constitution to give the power of line item veto to the President in regards to ANY legislation, not just spending bills. Mr. Bush pressed for this line item veto power also and congress refused, so he has resorted to issuing signing statements in lieu of that power.


Statement from SCOTUS justice regarding the Clinton vs. New York case.
"If Congress wants to give the president that power, they will have to pass a constitutional amendment." Justice Stevens said. "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution,"
 
Last edited:
It's a metaphor, not an actual veto. The law still is on the books and Congress (or any other person with standing) is free to file suit to compel enforcement. Even you, UD.

Dean sets up a straw man and flails away at it, proving nothing.

Stevens's dicta was talking about an actual, de jure line-item veto. Not compelling the Executive to comply with unconstitutional provisions of signed bills.
 
Gringao said:
It's a metaphor, not an actual veto. The law still is on the books and Congress (or any other person with standing) is free to file suit to compel enforcement. Even you, UD.

Dean sets up a straw man and flails away at it, proving nothing.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is that it's a metaphorical denial to enforce a law that the president feels is unconstitutional or undermines his authority as Commander in Chief?

Based on statements from Several congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike we may just see the end of these signing statements used in the manor this administration has misused them.

Sen Arlen Specter (R) is leading the congressional Judiciary Committee in filing legislation enabling them to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws after the committee's hearing on signing statements. This will put the issue before the SCOTUS.

The Executive is not compelled to sign a bill into law that they feel is unconstitutional. The president is free to veto that bill and send it back for review. If overridden he can request the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
 
Last edited:
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Your assertion is that it's a metaphorical denial to enforce a law that the president feels is unconstitutional or undermines his authority as Commander in Chief?

Based on statements from Several congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike we may just see the end of these signing statements used in the manor this administration has misused them.

Sen Arlen Specter (R) is leading the congressional Judiciary Committee in filing legislation enabling them to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws after the committee's hearing on signing statements. This will put the issue before the SCOTUS.

The Executive is not compelled to sign a law they feel is unconstitutional. The president is free to veto that bill and send it back for review. If overridden he can request the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
Click to expand...

I'm saying John Dean's saying this is "like" the line-item veto is the use of a metaphor (actually, simile) that allows him to declare as unconstitutional the use of signing statements to trim the scope of a bill signed into law. Even he knows that this has been around for almost 200 years. Presidents are not required to obey unconstitutional edicts.
 
Gringao said:
I'm saying John Dean's saying this is "like" the line-item veto is the use of a metaphor (actually, simile) that allows him to declare as unconstitutional the use of signing statements to trim the scope of a bill signed into law. Even he knows that this has been around for almost 200 years. Presidents are not required to obey unconstitutional edicts.
Click to expand...

I understood your statement. I just want to be clear that you believe that the president's use of signing statements does not amount to using them as a line-item veto given he hasn't veto'd a single bill in his entire ~6 years as president. Relying exclusively on signing statements to nullify parts of a bill he feels inappropriate.

How is that NOT exactly like a line item veto of a bill?
 
Last edited:
Ulaven_Demorte said:
I notice none of the usual cheerleaders are coming to dispute his statements either.
Click to expand...

Well it looks like one finally did show up. I have him on ignore as he never provides any intelligent or rational defense of the right. Based on what you quoted, I still think I made the correct decision in doing so.

I do enjoy how the right believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution only until it's advantageous to believe otherwise. The Constitution is clear on this, as are the relevant court decisions. It doesn't matter what other presidents have done. Bush is the first to use signing statements as described in Dean's column.

It's only a matter of time until either Congress or the SCOTUS puts a stop to it. Even republicans are distancing themselves from Bush. A Republican is leading the way in the Senate to get these issues before the Supreme Court. Congress, controlled by republicans or not, will tire of the president usurping their power.
 
wazhazhe said:
Well it looks like one finally did show up. I have him on ignore as he never provides any intelligent or rational defense of the right. Based on what you quoted, I still think I made the correct decision in doing so.

I do enjoy how the right believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution only until it's advantageous to believe otherwise. The Constitution is clear on this, as are the relevant court decisions. It doesn't matter what other presidents have done. Bush is the first to use signing statements as described in Dean's column.

It's only a matter of time until either Congress or the SCOTUS puts a stop to it. Even republicans are distancing themselves from Bush. A Republican is leading the way in the Senate to get these issues before the Supreme Court. Congress, controlled by republicans or not, will tire of the president usurping their power.
Click to expand...

One can only hope that the Congress will finally begin to act in a manner that is consistent with it's duty to act as a check and balance to the Executive branch's power. Claiming 'War powers' of a president does not grant one immunity from oversight as this administration is wont to believe. I am only surprised it has taken so long for this issue to be brought to the fore by congress. Historically the congress has fought tooth and nail to preserve it's role in government.

Citing 9/11 and the 'war on terror' as a reason for sacrificing one's duties in the interest of 'national security' should only have been used as a temporary measure, if at all. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will strike down the use of signing statements in the manner that they are being used by this administration and nullify each and every one of the 750+ instances.
 
Take a guess as to who invented the signing statement. Our new Supreme Court judge justice Alito. He created this during the RayGun administration. Bush has used the signing statement 750 times so far, an incredible misuse. This should be abolished. If everyone does not have to follow a law then it is not a law.
 
wazhazhe said:
W
I do enjoy how the right believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution only until it's advantageous to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

You mean like Hillary Clinton on the flag burning issue?
 
miles said:
You mean like Hillary Clinton on the flag burning issue?
Click to expand...

Her stance on video games and flag burning just makes it absolutely clear I won't vote for her, ever.

What a stupid waste of time.
 
Recidiva said:
Her stance on video games and flag burning just makes it absolutely clear I won't vote for her, ever.

What a stupid waste of time.
Click to expand...

The government is doing what it does best: finding useless solutions to problems that don't exist.
 
Saint Boner said:
Take a guess as to who invented the signing statement. Our new Supreme Court judge justice Alito.
Click to expand...

Sam Alito was around during the Jackson Administration??
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
I understood your statement. I just want to be clear that you believe that the president's use of signing statements does not amount to using them as a line-item veto given he hasn't veto'd a single bill in his entire ~6 years as president. Relying exclusively on signing statements to nullify parts of a bill he feels inappropriate.

How is that NOT exactly like a line item veto of a bill?
Click to expand...

Because the language is still part of the law that the President signed...it hasn't been vetoed but is being ignored because the Executive believes it to be unconstitutional. Unlike with laws that are actually vetoed, laws that the Executive ignores in this manner can be revived through the courts.
 
miles said:
The government is doing what it does best: finding useless solutions to problems that don't exist.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Not like we're not buried in enough corruption and tragedy, let's also be buried in bullshit.

I'd prefer a government that had less as it's motto "Insult to Injury!"
 
to the democratically pronounced neo-cons.

Why even bother..., the dogma and rhetoric will always be the same. Hysterical people are just unreceptive to any founding thought, including that maybe those they are calling experts are just cats-paws for the party. We've all faced the demonic demographic of the dyslexic "poor me" damaged. I can't claim any party as my own, but I sure as hell can claim that my mind is my own. I'm not conned by "catch-phrases" and "cults-of-personalities". I'm not even going to banter with all those whining plush-puppies. I want to find some friendlies and I am getting ever so much closer to making changes in the community. They want to think their tiny, little community inside the community is smart and powerful, let them. They want to sleep in delerious dreams of dynasties, let them. There's no need, much less want, to chatter about ghosts and passing empires with those that are one step away from the grave. They've made their choice..., let them die with it.




dislecsyc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Night Court And Batman: The Animated Series Actor Richard Moll Is Dead At 80
Replies
2
Views
504
AchtungNight
A
F
Richard Lewis, who mined life and neuroses for dark comedy, dies at 76
Replies
0
Views
267
FL30
F
B
The UK must allow Hate-Speech to get Trade Deal
Replies
4
Views
232
Cogan
Cogan
P
14 states file a lawsuit arguing Elon Musk's authority at DOGE is unconstitutional
Replies
10
Views
318
Politruk
P
Rightguide
It's About Time
Replies
2
Views
190
Politruk
P
Back
Top