"Signing Statements"

[jducoeur]

Terribly interesting segment on NPR right now (on "On Point", repeated at 7pm tonight).

Everyone's been making a big deal about Bush finally giving the first veto of his six years in office; there's often been an implicit tone of, "Look how reasonable he is, and how well he works with Congress". But very little attention has been paid to his practice of using "signing statements". Basically, when he signs a bill into law, he attaches a rider saying how the Administration will interpret the law, which sometimes subverts the intent of that law or even amounts to saying that they will largely ignore it.

Well, the American Bar Association has just released study of these things, and it's pretty appalling. Turns out that Bush has issued something like 800 of them -- more than all other Presidents combined. So much for reasonable. Even the more responsible Republicans in Congress are getting worried by this subtle power-grab, and are mulling legislation to at least force some discipline on the practice, and maybe give Congress the power to sue the Presidency over it. Suddenly there's a new constitutional crisis looming, which has been building quietly for years...

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

We are in the middle of a very serious, very quiet crisis which is only now being picked up by actual media. The executive branch has been steadily and rapidly consolidating power while reducing both the balance in, and the popularity of. the other two branches ("activist judges", re-stocking SCOTUS, the whole filibusters-as-terrorism thing, truly ridiculous gerrymandering for the mid-term elections, etc.)

The worry in the back of my mind, of course, is if in January 2009 Bush refuses to step down, or in September creates a new policy for electing or counting (beyond the simple cheating that was done in the previous elections). As with SCA Royalty, you can forgive a lot if you remember they're only for six months -- but the very real specter of perpetual rule, embodied in the denial of checks and balances you highlight above, keeps surfacing.

[eclecticmagpie.livejournal.com]

I thought that the big fuss about the veto was that he actually committed to a public opposition to Congress, rather than hiding behind a signing statement. I can imagine the statement he would have had to use: "I approve this bill, under the proviso that my understanding is that neither it nor anything else the Congress does applies to me or my chosen successors or assistants"

[mentalgiant.livejournal.com]

Have Congress sue the Presidency. Let's have at it.

Everything that man does is a product of the smoldering evil core that controls his every action. Its amazing - the worst President ever, and perhaps one of the most cruel, manipulative, disgusting, law-breaking, stupid, religious human beings to ever shadow this world.

There should be a movement to remove his presidency from the history books altogether so as not to endanger our children's fragile memories. Lets do it!

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I recommend reading this recent New Yorker profile (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060703fa_fact1) of David Addington, current chief of staff and long-time legal advisor to the Angry Foul-Mouthed Liar^TM. It starts off with an irrelevant anecdote about Colin Powell but goes into very good perspective and history on their (long) efforts to restore the Nixonian imperial presidency.

I hope it's not too late to stall or reverse the trend but I've been saying for a while that this country is stepping down the road to fascism. There's a dangerous juxtaposition between an executive that believes it should have more authority (and is willing to pull it out of their collective ass while calling it constitutional), ignoring any restrictions or oversight that the legislature may seek to put on it, combined with liberal use of the "state secrets" privilege and other shell games (e.g. Padilla) to pre-empt judicial challenges. Whether or not it leads to a house-cleaning (i.e., party changeover in one or both houses of Congress and then the presidency), a real crisis, or waking up one morning in a country that used to be America remains to be seen.

[laurion]

They shoukld eliminate signing statements altogether. The cookie-cutter definitions of the three branches may oversimplify, or they may just simplify as much as is possible, and no more....

Leave it to congress to draft the laws, and the courts to interpret them. That's why we have a congress to represent the people, courts to provide experts where needed, and a president to...

Oh yes, to further the political interests of a small cadre of oligarchists. Or was it plutocrats? (I know, I know, it's to do the day to day actual administering of the country) Either way, the cartoon version doesn't include the ability for the president to make revisions to laws last minute and then signing them. I have no objection to the administration proposing new legislation, but packing the houses with party yesmen who won't object to having their authority wrested from them with such a subversive tactic as signing statements is disturbing and disgusting.