Has Senator Kerry made any comments about the illegal signing

[babylonsister]

statements, or expressed an opinion? Inquiring minds...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=224&topic_id=1562&mesg_id=1562

[karynnj]

1. In the Senate speech on Alito, they were part of the reason he fought

confirmation. From the January 30, 2006 speech, from Thomas:

"During Judge Alito's tenure, the Reagan administration developed new uses for the theory. It was used to support claims of limitless presidential power in the area of foreign affairs--including the actions that became the Iran-contra affair. And, this view of Presidential power has been carried on by the current Bush administration, claiming in Presidential signing statements, that the President can ignore antitorture legislation overwhelmingly passed here in Congress. Not only is the substance of that message incredible, but the idea that the President can somehow alter congressional intent--the meaning of legislation agreed upon by 100 Senators--with a single flick of a pen is absolutely ludicrous. It turns the meaning of legislative intent on its head.

In the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the scope of the power of the executive branch, but rather, addressed the question of who controls the executive branch. Don't be fooled by that explanation. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of executive power.

In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, has stated that ``he practical consequence of this theory is dramatic.'' It is just common sense that if the unitary executive theory means that the President can ignore laws that Congress passes, it necessarily expands the scope of Presidential power--and reduces the scope of Congress.

Judge Alito had numerous opportunities in the hearings to define the limits of the unitary executive, but he refused to answer my colleagues' questions. He didn't answer when Senator Leahy asked him whether it would be constitutional for the Congress to prohibit Americans from using torture. He didn't answer when Senator Durbin asked whether he shared Justice Thomas's view that a wartime President has inherent powers--beyond those explicitly given to Congress. He didn't answer when Senator Feingold asked what, if any, limits there are on the President's power. "

This has also been a major point in Kerry's laundry list of Bush's abuses of power.

[babylonsister]

2. Thanks for that, karyn. I knew he'd never think this was legit; thanks

for confirming.