ABA Attacks Bush Revisions: Approves "signing-statement" resolution

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/AP: Lawyers' Group Attacks Bush Revisions
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 8, 2006

HONOLULU (AP) -- The American Bar Association on Tuesday approved a resolution condemning President Bush's practice of writing exceptions to legislation he signs into law.

Delegates, representing 410,000 members, at the ABA's annual meeting approved the resolution objecting to any president using bill signing statements as a way of diluting or changing laws rather than using an outright veto.

Bush has vetoed only one bill, on stem cell research, but written exceptions to some 800 legislative provisions, more than all previous presidents combined.

The Bush statements say the president reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

''The constitution says the president has two choices: either sign the bill or veto it. And if you sign it, you can't have your hand behind your back with your fingers crossed,'' said Michael Greco, the ABA's outgoing president....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Lawyers-Bush.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. that's our bush. one hand behind his back with his fingers crossed.

[UpInArms]

5. Dimson Lies about anything and everything - it's a pathological thing

[lyonn]

2. The ABA is finally coming to their senses

Watched a meeting they had a few weeks ago on this subject during their convention and was impressed. With all their glowing remarks on bush's judicial nominations I was beginning to worry about that organization.

[sabra]

3. kick

:kick:

[MrCoffee]

4. Prof. Lawrence Tribe on Signing Statements

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/larry-tribe-on-aba-signing-statements.html

Read this amazing essay by Prof. Tribe on why the ABA missed the boat with their resolution.

Many thanks to the DUer who posted this a couple of days ago!

[Recursion]

6. Good start. Impeach Scalia too

Scalia, who went absolutely insane over Kennedy's quoting of foreign law as a supplementary argument for a decision (as opposed to Marshall, who quoted foreign law as definitive in 6 non-treaty cases), went on to cite signing statements as having a greater weight than the deliberations and legislative history of the act itself. IE, what the President wants is more important than what Congress actually deliberated and decided.

[MissWaverly]

7. how about an investigation into Bush v Gore

maybe a little testimony under oath for the Supreme Beings, and possible impeachment for abuse
of office?????

[MrCoffee]

8. You'd have to fire all 7 who are left from 2000

And there's no way I'm letting Shrub pack SCOTUS with 7 new Scalitos.

[MissWaverly]

9. well, I am hoping that the new Dem president

will expand the Supreme Court members and since he'll have the majority in both the house
and senate, this won't be a problem, but it irks me that our country was blatantly stolen by
these thugs in 2000.

[cyberpj]

10. Oh boy.... a resolution condemning signing statements. So what?

It doesn't actually DO anything about it.

[dreamsvsnightmares]

11. Yeah one hand behind his back

giving the American people the middle finger salute