On Signing Statements

[Scriptor Ignotus]

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

Defending Bush, a Justice Department lawyer said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had made it prudent for the president to protect his powers with signing statements more than did his predecessors.

''Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events,'' said lawyer Michelle Boardman. ''The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11.''


I think everyone on this forum will agree that Bush's signing statments are worrisome at best. The statement above, given by one of Bush's DOJ enablers, concerns me the most. Is Bush in need of more power than any other President because of 9/11? Should Roosevelt have declared himself Emperor of America after Pearl Harbor? Maybe Clinton should have had Kenneth Star hung for treason after the Cole and US Embassy bombings in the interest of national security.

Seriously, this lady is a law professor at the University of Chicago. Doesn't she know about setting dangerous precedents? What happens when we elect a President who isn't as benevolent as the great George W Bush and we get attacked again? I see her line of reasoning as a hairline fracture on the Constitution, just waiting for someone else to come along and finish tearing it in half.

some interesting comments can also be found here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1151377402.shtml

;-)

[Supersedeas]

1. 9/11 justifies everything...and I mean EVERYTHING

[rkc3]

3. That's what I told my wife when she found out about me and my secretary.

By that logic - we are in deep trouble if this trend continues.

Why do we need Congress if the president can do whatever they damn well please?

[flyingfysh]

2. who actually writes these statements?

Bush isn't smart enough to do it. Someone else must be writing these and shoving them in front of him to sign.

[Master Mahon]

4. Any man who 'talks to God'

and chops wood with his 'lord and savior', can do anything he pleases in my book! :+

[JohnWxy]

5. recommended. An Extremely important issue.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html


"In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law."



As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational."
~~
~~
The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): "It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.')."

Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement?

~~
~~

Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements.

~~
By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.

[elehhhhna]

6. The moron who ignored "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

should not expect us to take his writing seriously.

[jimshoes]

7. We must assume their intentions

are not the same as the ones they swore to uphold upon "taking" office. I'm no constitutional scholar or even an academic but I find the course the administration is on worrisome to say the least. By small steps they are making the USA a totalitarian regime worthy of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler put together. Immagine if the gestapo had 21st century technology and you will need immagine no further than the current group of thieves and carpetbaggers and snoops now running the gov. What their end game entails does not take all that much immagination. They want to control everything and everybody.