“We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president’s acts declared unconstitutional,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
Specter’s announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
Practice 'harming the separation of powers'
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
“That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement,” said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added “is harming the separation of powers.”
Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter’s committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.
Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
1976 Ford Mustang II Ghia: 302 with a 600cfm Edelbrock carb, Edelbrock Performer 289 intake, Dynomax Blackjack headers, 2.5" exhaust with Flowmaster Super 44s. RJS 11-gallon fuel cell, C4 tranny, chrome 16" pony wheels, fuzzy dice, brown vinyl half-top, and painted in the tackiest color ever (harvest gold, that's why I call it "The Goldenrod").
Also have a 2003 Dodge Ram (lightly modded daily driver/tow rig/office/dining room/home away from home/workshop... I call it "The Big Blue Dawg".)
Bush has been breaking the law repeatedly, and claims he has the right to do so. Arlen Specter (R) is suing him to settle the issue.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
This has been going on for ages, with a "creeping crud" of steadily advancing encroachment of the executive power exercising more and more "spin" on regulations passed in black letter federal law.
Every President since Lincoln has done this to some degree, with the exception of those rare cases where the President had SO MUCH power over Congress that it was a moot point (the last example would be FDR, who indeed rarely worried with the minutia of applying regulations through his adminstration's departments).
If you think about it, its an obvious problem, not too different from the case of the board of directors of a company putting company policy and guidance into effect, but having the CEO alter those poilicies after the fact.
The custom for a long time has been for a President to essentially notify Congress of his intention to do this via the signing of "statements" to this effect.
Specter, who has been in open warfare with the White House since his re-election, has had his staff identify 750 such "statements".
Its important to note that just issuing such a document does not, in and of itself, constitute any change to the bill, nor does it have any particular affect on how that bill is applied as law - UNLESS the president instructs the appropriate executive department to modify or even disregard that bill.
It would be interesting to know how many such ocassions exist, and for which bills.
This sort of battle between the executive and legislative branches is, at first blush, somewhat of a tit-for-tat.
For decades, the legislature has issued bills infringing on the historic prerogatives of the executive. Sometimes this has ignited friction, particularly in such arenas as foreign affairs, which historically fell within the pervue of the executive save for such matters as ratifying treaties and such. With the advent of "dollar diplomacy" this changed dramatically, to the point where Congress began attaching complex "strings" to monies doled out for the purpose of buying friends and influencing foreign powers. This reached a bizarre peak in the Iran Contra scandal, when an NSA desperate for funds resorted to playing footsy with drug dealing banana republics, islaamofascists, and gun running for money.
Now we have Congress passing sweeping laundry lists of bill-of-rights give-backs like the Patriot Act, while simultaneously fussing over some potential tweaks of other laws by a meddling President.
Hard to pick a side, but I tend to believe that this is one that needs to be clarified. I would say that it falls neatly outside the narrowly defined parameters of the Constitution, and would best be addressed by a Constitutional Amendment that would both clarify the relative powers of the seperate powers, while handling the discrete matters of legislators seeking to poach on the Presidential preserve; Presidents trying to find a way to "manage" law rather than follow it; and judges creating legislation from the bench.
It would be fun to watch, and might actually do us some good.
Predicition: The Supreme Court will dodge the issue.
“We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president’s acts declared unconstitutional,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
Specter’s announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
Practice 'harming the separation of powers'
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
“That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement,” said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added “is harming the separation of powers.”
Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter’s committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.
Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
Now we have Congress passing sweeping laundry lists of bill-of-rights give-backs like the Patriot Act, while simultaneously fussing over some potential tweaks of other laws by a meddling President.
What is it that I am remembering about...I don't know...something to do with Congress voting on the Patriot Act without even being allowed to read it first - and signing off on it, anyway? Were those just rumors, or am I remembering events incorrectly again?
I agree that something has to be done about Bush or any other President basically saying, "Pass whatever law you want and everyone else has to follow it - but I'm immune." From such attitudes dictators are born. At the same time, it's kind of hard to believe that Congress' intent in all of this is to uphold American laws and rights when they signed off on such a wholesale document as the Patriot Act sight-unseen. Kind of makes the casual observer think that maybe they aren't all that interested in preserving the law, liberties and freedoms for the American people but are very interesting in preserving their own power. Real attempts to do what is right or just a Capitol Hill pi$$ing contest?
1976 Ford Mustang II Ghia: 302 with a 600cfm Edelbrock carb, Edelbrock Performer 289 intake, Dynomax Blackjack headers, 2.5" exhaust with Flowmaster Super 44s. RJS 11-gallon fuel cell, C4 tranny, chrome 16" pony wheels, fuzzy dice, brown vinyl half-top, and painted in the tackiest color ever (harvest gold, that's why I call it "The Goldenrod").
Also have a 2003 Dodge Ram (lightly modded daily driver/tow rig/office/dining room/home away from home/workshop... I call it "The Big Blue Dawg".)
Actually, the problem is deeper than "just" whether or not Bush can personally flout a particular law. What's going on can be more damaging that that, because many bureaucrats (the huge majority of the Federal Government) can then hide behind the Presidents coat tails. Once "exempted" (I think of it more as "pre-empted"), any idiot sitting a desk might well be shielded from repercussions from not following that law. The subject of "illegal aliens" crosses my mind about now...
On the other hand, laws passed that restrict portions of the Executive Powers set aside by the Constitution are themselves "unconstitutional", and therefore subject to challenge and reversal - which of course is the appropriate measure for a President to take when such a thing happens.
Just sending up some sort of "toe in the door" document that leaves this option open for future use strikes me as a very politic thing to do - versus the doubtless contentious and politically damaging process of dragging a "seperate but equal" powers test through the Supreme Court. Its also the wrong thing to do.
Perhaps I'm simplistic (and I know I'm old fashioned), but I'm getting tired of all this clever maneuvering intended to "get around" the more uncomfortable (for politicians) portions of the Constitution.
Legislation that's unconstitutional SHOULD be challenged - outright, not with some soft-soapo "statement" when, by golly, you SIGNED the darn thing! Making this clear is what the VETO is for, not this wiggly statement process.
Presidents that fail to follow constitutional law SHOULD be held to account - outright, in the court of public opinion, and in the court of the Senate if need be.
Justices that fail to protect the constitution SHOULD be impeached, and replaced with new faces secure in the knowledge that the APPOINTMENT is lifetime, but not doing the JOB can get you the hook!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB02GT
What is it that I am remembering about...I don't know...something to do with Congress voting on the Patriot Act without even being allowed to read it first - and signing off on it, anyway? Were those just rumors, or am I remembering events incorrectly again?
I agree that something has to be done about Bush or any other President basically saying, "Pass whatever law you want and everyone else has to follow it - but I'm immune." From such attitudes dictators are born. At the same time, it's kind of hard to believe that Congress' intent in all of this is to uphold American laws and rights when they signed off on such a wholesale document as the Patriot Act sight-unseen. Kind of makes the casual observer think that maybe they aren't all that interested in preserving the law, liberties and freedoms for the American people but are very interesting in preserving their own power. Real attempts to do what is right or just a Capitol Hill pi$$ing contest?
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
What you're remembering is all the crawfishing that went on after it became apparent that some parts of the Patriot Act were unpopular with some powerful special interests. Politicians were spotlighted like white tail deer, and stood there dazzled, saying,
"Yes, I voted for it, but I never read the whole thing - I didn't have time, I had an appointment with my massage therapist."
Etc, etc.
Truth be known, some of these maroons have probably never read an entire bill in their whole lives!
They had the same opportunity to read the thing (I have, and yes, its heavy going, but if most of the honorable Congressment could fit in time to read it, then ALL of them could have).
This is no more a valid excuse than if they had stood there blinking in the camera lights and said:
"My dog ate my copy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB02GT
What is it that I am remembering about...I don't know...something to do with Congress voting on the Patriot Act without even being allowed to read it first - and signing off on it, anyway? Were those just rumors, or am I remembering events incorrectly again?
I agree that something has to be done about Bush or any other President basically saying, "Pass whatever law you want and everyone else has to follow it - but I'm immune." From such attitudes dictators are born. At the same time, it's kind of hard to believe that Congress' intent in all of this is to uphold American laws and rights when they signed off on such a wholesale document as the Patriot Act sight-unseen. Kind of makes the casual observer think that maybe they aren't all that interested in preserving the law, liberties and freedoms for the American people but are very interesting in preserving their own power. Real attempts to do what is right or just a Capitol Hill pi$$ing contest?
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
What you're remembering is all the crawfishing that went on after it became apparent that some parts of the Patriot Act were unpopular with some powerful special interests. Politicians were spotlighted like white tail deer, and stood there dazzled, saying,
"Yes, I voted for it, but I never read the whole thing - I didn't have time, I had an appointment with my massage therapist."
Etc, etc.
Truth be known, some of these maroons have probably never read an entire bill in their whole lives!
They had the same opportunity to read the thing (I have, and yes, its heavy going, but if most of the honorable Congressment could fit in time to read it, then ALL of them could have).
This is no more a valid excuse than if they had stood there blinking in the camera lights and said:
"My dog ate my copy."
Either way, it's not a valid excuse. I mean, what responsible legislator would vote for something if expressly denied the opportunity to read it first? If I were a legislator that, alone, would earn my "No," vote. I'd be wondering what kind of crap someone was trying to sneak past me. My point was that, unfortunately, it sounds like some members of Congress are complaining about Bush's questionable activities more out of interest in preserving their own status than in upholding the law, liberty and Constitutional principles. Maybe doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Actually, the problem is deeper than "just" whether or not Bush can personally flout a particular law. What's going on can be more damaging that that, because many bureaucrats (the huge majority of the Federal Government) can then hide behind the Presidents coat tails. Once "exempted" (I think of it more as "pre-empted"), any idiot sitting a desk might well be shielded from repercussions from not following that law. The subject of "illegal aliens" crosses my mind about now...
On the other hand, laws passed that restrict portions of the Executive Powers set aside by the Constitution are themselves "unconstitutional", and therefore subject to challenge and reversal - which of course is the appropriate measure for a President to take when such a thing happens.
Just sending up some sort of "toe in the door" document that leaves this option open for future use strikes me as a very politic thing to do - versus the doubtless contentious and politically damaging process of dragging a "seperate but equal" powers test through the Supreme Court. Its also the wrong thing to do.
Perhaps I'm simplistic (and I know I'm old fashioned), but I'm getting tired of all this clever maneuvering intended to "get around" the more uncomfortable (for politicians) portions of the Constitution.
Legislation that's unconstitutional SHOULD be challenged - outright, not with some soft-soapo "statement" when, by golly, you SIGNED the darn thing! Making this clear is what the VETO is for, not this wiggly statement process.
Presidents that fail to follow constitutional law SHOULD be held to account - outright, in the court of public opinion, and in the court of the Senate if need be.
Justices that fail to protect the constitution SHOULD be impeached, and replaced with new faces secure in the knowledge that the APPOINTMENT is lifetime, but not doing the JOB can get you the hook!
Here! Here!!
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
What you're remembering is all the crawfishing that went on after it became apparent that some parts of the Patriot Act were unpopular with some powerful special interests. Politicians were spotlighted like white tail deer, and stood there dazzled, saying,
"Yes, I voted for it, but I never read the whole thing - I didn't have time, I had an appointment with my massage therapist."
Etc, etc.
Truth be known, some of these maroons have probably never read an entire bill in their whole lives!
They had the same opportunity to read the thing (I have, and yes, its heavy going, but if most of the honorable Congressment could fit in time to read it, then ALL of them could have).
This is no more a valid excuse than if they had stood there blinking in the camera lights and said:
"My dog ate my copy."
Actually, they generally have staffers that do the reading and policy analysis for them.
The Patriot Act was over 1000 pages, and they had to hours to read the thing and vote. It was humanly impossible, unless each legislator had 100 staffers to take 10 or so pages of it.
Voting against it would have been political suicide, so they inserted generic language like "you have to get a warrant, no portion may be constued to go against the Consitutional Rights of Americans, etc.,"
Bob Barr, who was probably the most Libertarian member of the house didn't get the Patriot Act read until a week or so later, and he was outraged.
It would have been more courageous to delay the vote, or even walk out denying a quorum, but this Congress has been spineless.
__________________________________
But it's not just the Patriot Act, as noted, there are 750+ instances.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Again, my old fashioned sense of propriety alarm starts clanging.
This was NOT some omnibus list of pork barrel projects, or boilerplate read into the record for the benefit of CSpan - it was a sweeping revision to how our Rights are applied (or, as the case may be, damaged)!
The various major segments were arrived at over a period of time and circulated piecemiel among the Congressional offices. Someone curious as to what was happening SHOULD have been watching it - if they were any good at their jobs, LIKE A HAWK. It took me a day to read it - and granted, I read fast, and I was not in the position of having to sign it (only live with it).
I suggest that the excuse was, as are must excuses, far too CONVENIENT.
Some of these guys (like Barr) are cagey old ex-DA's. Smart. Experienced. Plenty wise enough to see the value of a "we couldn't take the time to actually read all the stuff we and our staffs included in such a large and sweeping bill".
Having said all this, what's their excuse for ratifying it years later AGAIN?
Headache?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
Actually, they generally have staffers that do the reading and policy analysis for them.
The Patriot Act was over 1000 pages, and they had to hours to read the thing and vote. It was humanly impossible, unless each legislator had 100 staffers to take 10 or so pages of it.
Voting against it would have been political suicide, so they inserted generic language like "you have to get a warrant, no portion may be constued to go against the Consitutional Rights of Americans, etc.,"
Bob Barr, who was probably the most Libertarian member of the house didn't get the Patriot Act read until a week or so later, and he was outraged.
It would have been more courageous to delay the vote, or even walk out denying a quorum, but this Congress has been spineless.
__________________________________
But it's not just the Patriot Act, as noted, there are 750+ instances.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
Again, my old fashioned sense of propriety alarm starts clanging.
This was NOT some omnibus list of pork barrel projects, or boilerplate read into the record for the benefit of CSpan - it was a sweeping revision to how our Rights are applied (or, as the case may be, damaged)!
The various major segments were arrived at over a period of time and circulated piecemiel among the Congressional offices. Someone curious as to what was happening SHOULD have been watching it - if they were any good at their jobs, LIKE A HAWK. It took me a day to read it - and granted, I read fast, and I was not in the position of having to sign it (only live with it).
I suggest that the excuse was, as are must excuses, far too CONVENIENT.
Some of these guys (like Barr) are cagey old ex-DA's. Smart. Experienced. Plenty wise enough to see the value of a "we couldn't take the time to actually read all the stuff we and our staffs included in such a large and sweeping bill".
Having said all this, what's their excuse for ratifying it years later AGAIN?
There’s nothing harder in public life than admitting you’re wrong. By the way, admitting you’re wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don’t believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it’s out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.
So, I’m saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he’s the worst President, period.
**************************************
None of this, by the way, should be interpreted as an endorsement of the opposition party. The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.
******************
I believe that George W. Bush has taken us down a terrible road. I don’t believe the Democrats are offering an alternative. That means we’re on our own to save this magnificent country. The United States of America is a gift to the world, but it has been badly abused and it’s rightful owners, We the People, had better step up to the plate and reclaim it before the damage becomes irreparable.
To my dying day, one of the things I will always be most proud of is that I did not stay with my party, right or wrong. I put the interests of my country above those of my political party. I had enough sense to see the country was headed the wrong way and I tried to make a difference.
Charles Barkley has it right. "I was a Republican ... until they lost their minds."
I used to call myself a Rockefeller Republican. Then, when I stopped being a Republican (the day we invaded Iraq), I started calling myself a Jeffords Republican (the Vermont Senator who had the wisdom and the courage to leave the party in 2001). But now I might start calling myself a Barkley Republican - the kind who left the party when they lost their minds.
*********************
But pointing out how right the opponents of the war were isn't just an exercise in self-puffery. There are important consequences for future decisions. For example, one of the main reasons we warned against the Iraqi invasion on The Young Turks was because of the precedent we would be setting. Something almost no one talks about to this day.
It was a terrible precedent to set to say that first strikes without a legal basis are acceptable (it was also the exact opposite of George H.W. Bush's New World Order precedent -- which was a bold and brilliant foreign policy effort and one of the reasons I was a Republican in the first place). Following international law is the kind of thing conservatives can deride as asking for a permission slip from the UN. Yes, you neanderthals, we do need approval from the rest of the world, otherwise we become international outlaws - and encourage others do the same.
__________________________________
Seems a bunch of Former Republicans are finally coming around. Perhaps these are the folks giving Specter a Spine Transplant.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush 
