Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges

[Eugene]

(The Boston Globe)

Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously
yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority
in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took
office.

Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world's largest association
of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number
of members from both political parties.

They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several
prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's assertions that he has the power to ignore laws
that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions
he believes interfere with his powers.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/

[napi21]

1. I'm only familiar with one or two of the people on this panel,

but the ones I am familiar with are very good at constitutional law. This is very encouraging to me. I'm glad these scholars are investigating and will make their decision public!

[UpInArms]

2. Alito started this crap under RayGun

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html

excerpt:

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.

In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.

Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."

<snip>

The Bush administration "has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress," Cooper wrote in the September issue. "This tour d' force has been carried out in such a systematic and careful fashion that few in Congress, the media, or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all."

...more...

[unblock]

5. the difference, of course, is that

legislative intent is effectively reviewed by the president. the president can veto the bill if he doesn't like the legislative intent.

congress has no corresponding ability to review the presidential signing statements.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Should be a no brainer

Only in Article I Section 7 (All of Article I pertains to the Legislature and the Legislature is detailed before Article II pertaining to the President) does it state what the President can do regarding legislation passed by Congress.

Section 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

[Occulus]

12. How the hell did this schmuck get a law degree?

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate,"

Um, no, Mr. Douche. The House and Senate- that's called Congress- can override the action of the President regarding a bill, by overriding his veto of that bill. By definition, Mr. Douche, the President, at the top of the Executive branch, holds less legislative power than the actual legislative branch itself.

I mean, :wtf:. Really. It's as if they're trying to undermine the Consti....

Oh.

[Kolesar]

3. Bush was not in a bubble so much as America was in a bush personality cult

I just thought I would say that.

[Mr_Spock]

4. I was just reading that article

I hope we can make some progress in stopping this band of thugs before it's too late...

[PSPS]

6. The ABA?

I have no respect for any group that counts "Torture Boy" Gonzales among its members.

[Justice]

9. it is not about who the members are, it is about who is on the panel

Most lawyers are members of the ABA == but the leadership and this panel is what is important.

[many a good man]

7. Thank god someone is finally doing something!

This issue goes to the heart of the junta's destruction of our Constitutional democracy.

I'd prefer to see it argued in front of the Supreme Court. IMO this is more essential than any indictment or impeachment.

[reprobate]

19. You mean the United States Extreme Court that Bush has packed?

I would prefer to see Thomas and Scalia impeached along with Mad George and Crash Cart, for the blatantly and transparantly unconstitutional decision they reached which put the Pretender in office in 2000. They both acted against the canons and soiled their seats on the court.

I realize that no Justice has been impeached before, but their actions certainly approach treason to the United States, and that, IMHO, is High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The stain on the nation will not be cleaned until these two, as well as O'Connor are imprisoned for their actions. As far as Renqhuist is concerned, I woudln't oppose digging up his corpse and putting it in the same cell as the other traitors.

[OneBlueSky]

8. um . . . shouldn't the Congress be doing this? . . .

after all, it's the laws that they have passed that Bush is saying he will circumvent . . . do they not understand the notion of checks and balances? . . . separation of powers? . . .

[TankLV]

11. Why should the REPUKES do this? This is what THEY want!

The phoney "compromises" are just to get the legislation "passed" so it can be changed to their liking later.

The REPUKES only control 3 branches of our government - don't you know it's all the DEMOCRATS fault!?!

[Piscis Austrinus]

23. yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhright

The GOP congresscritters fall into three categories:
1. the Bushco shills. Nope.
2. the ones who aren't shills but whose electorates have their collective head up their collective ass and will run them out if they oppose Bushco. Nope.
3. the ones who see what's happening and know it for what it is, but... well, Senator, you know about that little conversation you had on the phone a couple of weeks ago? You know, the one that would get you in all kinds of trouble with the good people in your home state? Well, here's a DVD of the recording we made of it, along with a few others. No, keep it - plenty more where that came from. Now, are you sure you want to launch this inquiry? Nope.

The only way to rid ourselves of Republican corruption is to rid ourselves of corrupt Republicans. Congress sure won't do it. The judiciary is being systematically gelded to prevent this. That leaves... We The People.

Which includes the ABA, which counts among its members a pretty large contingent of trial lawyers who have no use for the bum currently in (nominal) charge.

Peace
PsA

[ninkasi]

13. This is probably a stupid question

I'll try to make the question make some kind of sense. Ok, pissypants issues signing statements, declaring which part of the laws he just approved apply to him. Then he can ignore that provision, or law. What happens if a president chooses to ignore a law that a prior president approved, claiming that while the other president approved the law, the current president doesn't agree, so won't follow it. Doesn't that usurp the power of both the Congress and the courts?

Another thing, once the president who issued signing statements is out of office, if the presidency is won next time by the opposing party, does the new president get to abide by the prior president's signing statements? I can see where, by issuing so many of these statements, Bush is granting himself unlimited power. Once a Democrat is in office, would it be ok with Repukes if the new Democratic administration is able to keep all that power?

[Patsy Stone]

14. The second of your questions

was one of my biggest questions. I envisioned the Repubs demonized by their own party for years as Democratic presidents were allowed to act in the same secret, scummy fashion as Bush. Oh, the howwor!

[reprobate]

20. As to your question #1, that's just what Bush has been doing

with the FISA law. It requires him to seek a warrant from the court for easdropping, and was signed by previous presidents, yet he decided to ignore it.. That's not legal...IMPEACH THE BASTARD!

[Piscis Austrinus]

24. "Come closer, my son."

These bastards will never again give up power if they can find a way to keep it. If Bush's approval rating were even at 40% we would hear rumblings about repealing the 22nd Amendment. Similar rumblings were being heard before Iran-Contra and the S&L scandals made it clear that Reagan was getting a little too old.

That's really our best hope. These guys are motivated by greed, and no matter how smart or powerful they are, it will eventually get the better of them and bring them down. Ken Lay springs to mind here. Of course, until that happens, they steal everyone blind and damage or destroy millions of lives.

The fact is, there is no way this malfeasance is allowed to occur unless there is great confidence there will be no accountability. The fact that guys like Kenny-boy Lay are being decisively convicted of crimes by juries composed of ordinary Americans has to terrify these men. They know that for them, it will likely be life in prison, probably in SuperMax. Most of them likely would not survive long there. That's assuming that whoever follows them into power doesn't decide to heal America's image by sending them to the Hague, which is where I think they already should have gone.

I hope I am around to see the reckoning for Bushco, not out of a sense of revenge, but just for the sense of relief. In Lord of the Rings, there is a moment immediately after the fall of Sauron which describes the fall of the Dark Tower... "and then a hush fell."

I am living for the day when I will look around at the world, and nothing will have changed visibly, but I will feel like I have been set free. Living under this semi-tyrant has probably taken ten years off my life. I'd give up another five or ten gladly if I knew that in giving it up, that these men would face justice without the benefit of the use of executive power to thwart justice.

Peace
PsA

PS- I saw your icon and the quote from Conyers just seemed appropriate.


on edit: clarified the Iran-Contra reference

[Vidar]

15. I'd like to think this is good news, but in this contest what teeth

doe the ABA have. Ideally they could disbar the Supreme Court, but not in practice I'm sure. What can they really do?

[Oak2004]

25. Their opinion would carry considerable weight

and it would be difficult for all but the most extremist of judges to ignore it.

[Generic Brad]

16. What's the point of the ABA doing this?

I would rather see the courts doing this. The ABA has no official say in the matter. This feels to me like nothing more than a waste of time.

[NJmaverick]

17. Right wingers are always quoting the ABA

When a right wing fanatical judge is appointed. Anyone want to be the righties will scream this is a bias organization when the ABA finds that georgie boy has done wrong?

[slipslidingaway]

18. Thanks, Alito 1986 draft proposal to advance signing statements.

snip>>

6 page pdf proposal
http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

- For use in this pilot project, we should try to identify bills that (a) are reasonably likely to pass, (b) are
of some importance, and (c) are likely to present suitable problems of interpretation.

- Again, as an introductory step, our interpretive statements should be of moderate size and scope. Only relatively
important questions should be addressed.

We should concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than
issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress. The first step will be to convince the
courts that Presidential signing statements are valuable interpretive tools.

[wordpix2]

21. I just hope they move faster than most court cases move & move toward

impeachment of BushCheney.

[wicket]

22. kick

:kick:

[enough]

26. kick