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

Congress To Investigate Bush’s Signing Statements

Ulaven_Demorte

Ulaven_Demorte

Non-Prophet Organization
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
30,016
The House Judiciary Committee has launched an investigation challenging repeated assertions by President Bush that he need not enforce aspects of laws he deems unconstitutional.

Committee members clashed over the validity of the investigation, which began with a committee hearing on Wednesday. Democrats said Bush is overstepping his executive role and meddling with the legislative process. Republicans maintained the president's assertions are merely guiding interpretations and follow long-term precedent.

The investigation will cover Bush's commentary on bills approved by both congressional chambers that require presidential approval. In at least 148 cases, Bush has appended what are known as "signing statements" to his signature. The documents outline specific aspects of the law that he finds unconstitutional and might refuse to enforce.

Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., said Bush's widespread use of the signings challenge at least 800 provisions in laws passed while he has been in office.

"The administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy," Conyers said during the hearing. "This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate."

The signing statements amount to a line-item veto, according to critics, and frustrate the legislative branch by not giving lawmakers the opportunity to override a presidential veto. They also have said that Bush has failed repeatedly to notify Congress of his intentions and that a collection of his signing statements is not readily accessible to lawmakers or the public.

This is one thing I've been waiting six years for.
 
Woo hoo!

This makes me happy.

As long as they investigate them and say "Yeah, that's bad. Bad and stuff. Yeah."
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
The House Judiciary Committee has launched an investigation challenging repeated assertions by President Bush that he need not enforce aspects of laws he deems unconstitutional.

Committee members clashed over the validity of the investigation, which began with a committee hearing on Wednesday. Democrats said Bush is overstepping his executive role and meddling with the legislative process. Republicans maintained the president's assertions are merely guiding interpretations and follow long-term precedent.

The investigation will cover Bush's commentary on bills approved by both congressional chambers that require presidential approval. In at least 148 cases, Bush has appended what are known as "signing statements" to his signature. The documents outline specific aspects of the law that he finds unconstitutional and might refuse to enforce.

Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., said Bush's widespread use of the signings challenge at least 800 provisions in laws passed while he has been in office.

"The administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy," Conyers said during the hearing. "This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate."

The signing statements amount to a line-item veto, according to critics, and frustrate the legislative branch by not giving lawmakers the opportunity to override a presidential veto. They also have said that Bush has failed repeatedly to notify Congress of his intentions and that a collection of his signing statements is not readily accessible to lawmakers or the public.

This is one thing I've been waiting six years for.
Click to expand...
Good article UD.

Is using the FBI to spy on your enemys constitutional?
 
Not this red herring again. Signing statements have absolutely no legal authority whatsoever. Any investigation is just another example of policital grandstanding.

btw... "The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[5] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 247 signing statements among the three of them."

Its nothing new and its not the end of the world. Find something real to be outraged about UD.
 
DavidJericho said:
Not this red herring again. Signing statements have absolutely no legal authority whatsoever. Any investigation is just another example of policital grandstanding.

btw... "The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[5] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 247 signing statements among the three of them."

Its nothing new and its not the end of the world. Find something real to be outraged about UD.
Click to expand...


You're off a bit on your numbers:
Excerpted from: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
"...
President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means. "

Of course they don't have any legal authority, but the Bush administration has been using them as if they do. A clear violation of the separation of powers.
The President does not have the power to decide if the laws passed by congress are constitutional, that's the job of the Supreme Court, no matter it's makeup.



Comshaw
 
Yea, fucking Bush!


"Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes"

src
 
Comshaw said:
You're off a bit on your numbers:
Excerpted from: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
"...
President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means. "

Of course they don't have any legal authority, but the Bush administration has been using them as if they do. A clear violation of the separation of powers.
The President does not have the power to decide if the laws passed by congress are constitutional, that's the job of the Supreme Court, no matter it's makeup.



Comshaw
Click to expand...


Exactly, in this administration signing statements have been used a a de facto line-item veto, which has been found to be unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
vetteman said:
Let them, maybe they will get an education in free speech and the separation
of powers. You may learn something as well.
Click to expand...

Show me where exactly in the constitution that it says that the President has the right to determine the constitutionality of one part of a law on his own authority?
Then we can talk about separation of powers.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), recognized court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated any form of line-item veto.
 
Last edited:
Republicans maintained the president's assertions are merely guiding interpretations and follow long-term precedent.

*laughing*
They sure are!
 
VermilionSkye said:
Republicans maintained the president's assertions are merely guiding interpretations and follow long-term precedent.

*laughing*
They sure are!
Click to expand...



Read my link above. Its truely outragous!
 
vetteman said:
Well UL you might start with is oath of office, it's in Article II, it specifically charges him with supporting and defending the Constitution of the Unted States, how do you suppose one does this if he perceives a bill to be unconstitutional? Sign it into law so that citizens can suffer under it for the ten years it takes to get to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

No, he has three options when presented with a Bill.

Sign it into law.
Veto it.
Pocket Veto it.
 
vetteman said:
That's what you think, ask Andrew Jackson.
Click to expand...

I'll refer you to the case I cited earlier. Madison was the first U.S. President to issue a signing statement. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive.

This was prior to Jackson's term as President. Precedent lies with that case, not Andrew Jackson's assertions.

No United States Constitution provision, federal statute or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to proclaim a portion of a law unconstitutional given to the President.


Edit:: Madison was not the First to issue a signing Statement, that was Monroe.. But the precedent set by Marbury vs. Madison still predates andrew jackson's assertions.
 
Last edited:
vetteman said:
I didn't say there was. Your infantile argument that the President is a rubber stamp and cannot comment on a bill he signs is as unrealistic today as it was the last time you brought it up.
Click to expand...

The Constitution spells out the President's options when a law comes before him very clearly. It's not infantile to expect that the President abide by the very document he has sworn to uphold and protect. Nowhere does it say that a President can determine the constitutionality of a Law on his own judgement and proclaim through a statement that it will not be enforced.

Yet, that is exactly what Bush is using his signing statements for. Direction to federal agencies that a portion of a law he feels is unconstitutional and should not be enforced.

He is not the "Decision maker" where the Constitutionality of a Law is concerned. That is the function of the Supreme Court and has been found to be so in numerous cases. If he feels that a law, or any portion of a law, is unconstitutional then he is obligated to veto the law and give reason to Congress so that the matter can be resolved by the body empowered by the Constitution to create the Laws or if his Veto is overridden, to challenge that Law in the US Supreme Court so that they can rule on it's constitutionality.
 
Last edited:
garbage can said:
Good article UD.

Is using the FBI to spy on your enemys constitutional?
Click to expand...
Blaming Clinton is your way of taking responsibility for Republicans' wrongdoings?

FYI: What Clinton did as one incident, Bush has enshrined into policy with the NSA.


Byebye, Garby. :D
 
vetteman said:
I didn't say there was. Your infantile argument that the President is a rubber stamp and cannot comment on a bill he signs is as unrealistic today as it was the last time you brought it up.
Click to expand...
Your argument that it's just a comment is utterly idiotic.
 
vetteman said:
Your comment on my comment on the President's comment is so predictable. :)
Click to expand...
And true. Which is why Congress is doing this and not getting any hits from public opinion.

Ever wonder how it was that people like you lost power? Hmmmm?
 
vetteman said:
How does he support and defend the Constitution? What if Congress included an unconstitutional rider into the Defense Authorization Bill in the middle of war time. What if the President decided to sign the bill anyway because the need for the funds being timely outweighed the possibility of a veto on the unconstitutional rider believing the courts would deal with the rider at a later date. Are you saying he doesn't have a right to explain to the American people why he went ahead and made the decision to sign the bill even though he believed it to be unconstitutional on it's face?
Click to expand...
Do you maintain that this has happened 435 times in the last six years?
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
This is one thing I've been waiting six years for.
Click to expand...
Another do nothing uncommittal political waste of time - just like the non-binding legislation they passed against the "surge". :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The following, while related to the election, transcends politics - it is a message of hope for all who seek unity and peace. Plus, there's a coupon.
Replies
7
Views
916
PaxNurgle
P
DoctorSmith8
Please chime in with some ideas on how to proceed with this sci-fi story...
Replies
3
Views
678
DoctorSmith8
DoctorSmith8
F
David McCallum, star of hit TV series 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' and 'NCIS,' dies at 90
Replies
10
Views
1K
butters
butters
TarnishedPenny
Sperm donor alleged to have fathered 550 children faces legal action
Replies
7
Views
793
John Doe
John Doe
P
The president does NOT have the power to "impound" funds allocated by Congress
Replies
1
Views
107
Politruk
P
Back
Top