Bush Signs Pension Law. Signing Statement Says He'll Ignore Its Provisions

[bigtree]

August 17, 2006

Bush Signs Pension Bill, Calling It the Most Sweeping Reform in More Than 30 Years
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2326252


President's Statement on H.R. 4, the "Pension Protection Act of 2006"

The executive branch shall construe sections 221(a) and 1632(b)(1) of the Act, which call for the submission of legislative recommendations to the Congress, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.


in other words, Bush will ignore the provision of the law which direct him to tell Congress what he's negotiating in these foreign and international trade agreements . . . the signing statement continues:


Section 1634(e) purports to require the United States Trade Representative to submit to congressional committees the contents of the negotiating positions of the United States and foreign countries in certain international trade negotiations. The executive branch shall construe section 1634(e) in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs including negotiations with foreign countries, supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

so, he's citing, as justification, that his 'constitutional authority' as president would allow him to withhold that information if *he* determines the disclosure could affect national security (what else?), and a baffling reference to his ability to 'deliberate.'

Yet another imperious signing statement subverting the intent of the Legislature, banking on the Judiciary (which leans his way if there are challenges) to back him up.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060817-7.html


what is this trade language doing in the Pension Bill, anyway?

[babylonsister]

1. Drunk on power. Someone needs to cut him off. nt

[dave123williams]

30. "You don't have to go home, Mr. Bush, but you can't stay here."

[high density]

2. I hope the next Dem president remembers these signing statements

Who needs the line item veto when you have signing statements?

[MrSlayer]

6. If we don't get rid of E-voting there never will be a next Dem President.

They've stolen two and are only getting better at it. They are doing this stuff because they believe/know there is nothing that can be done to stop them.

[helderheid]

27. Couldn't have said it any better.

[MichiganVote]

3. WTH do pensions have to do w/ the constitution or international law?

Not to mention national security?

[SpiralHawk]

4. How perfectly republicon of him

To screw the citizens, and give a governmental helping hand to his fat cat republicon cronies.

"All pigs are equal, but republicon pigs are more equal. Heh, heh, heh." - george AWOL Bush

[Lars39]

5. K&R

Damn. It's like Friday night newsdump already.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

7. Another sad hallmark of the Bunnypants Years

Useless Legislation.

They might as well apply for the patent and be done with it.


:(

[elehhhhna]

8. Read more of them. They ALL say that.

[elehhhhna]

9. 4th rec.

[MrCoffee]

10. Re: the trade language.

I think it was added as an amendment just to rewrite current language in a bill Congress already passed.

[bigtree]

16. so, they're ignoring an attempt to further direct them

on existing legislation, and the WH is still determined to interpret it their own way. Amazing arrogance.

[MrCoffee]

35. Well, that's what the signing statements are for.

[whistle]

11. A Friedrick Nietzsche quote gives me hope for our generations

...after George Dumb-fuck Bush leaves this earth:

At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time.

[cyberpj]

12. Not hearing this yet on any news broadcasts. Does Congress even know?

Or care?

[MrCoffee]

13. It's not the first. It's the 751st.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

there may have been a few more in there.


It's old news.

[bigtree]

15. c'mon now MrCoffee

We could say that about all of the crimes of the Bush regime; old news. Where's the accountability in that?

All of these signing statements need to be repealed like Executive Orders are rolled back with new administrations, like Bush undid the Clinton environmental ones when he took over. They pile the crap on so that folks can't keep up, causing us to pay attention to whatever's on top of the pile as the other crimes get buried in the mountain of other offenses. But, we have the ability, and the responsibility to do the work of separating these offenses out and dealing with them . . . like they are 'new' news.

edit: I sense a little cheekiness in your comment that I missed before I responded. My rant's still a valid one though . . .

[MrCoffee]

24. Cheeky? Moi?

The good thing about the signing statements is that they are NOT LAW (unlike EOs which have the force and effect of law), they are declarations of intent as to how the law is going to be enforced. It's a technical difference to be sure, but an important one. Remember, signing statements have been around for a long time. Chimperator did not invent them. He ain't that bright.

Have you read Lawrence Tribe's blog re: the ABA position on signing statements. I tend to agree more with Prof. Tribe, in that the ABA is taking a misguided view of the problem. Just going after the signing statements in and of themselves misses the point. Congress has to attack the "Unified Executive" theory, which is what is precipitating the Constitutional crisis we're facing.

Why is it news now? Because I think yesterday's TSP decision, coupled with the signing statements, is grounds for impeachment.

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

ABA: http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf

[bigtree]

29. sure, it's the ignoring of the law that's at issue, not the statement

An approach to end the statement would end this amazingly transparent window into Bush's intent. Coupled with any actual follow-through on his stated intent to ignore the laws, the statements would have weight in any challenge.

However, I'm pessimistic that anything substantial can be done outside of Congress asserting themselves in an impeachment proceeding, as you proscribe. Outside of that, it's fair political game if you can tie his stated intent to obstruct the will of Congress with the act and expose him as the fascist he aspires to be.

[MrCoffee]

31. So, what you're saying is, we agree 100%? What an odd sensation.

[bigtree]

32. 100% MrCoffee

indeed

[WinkyDink]

14. The key unConstitutional term is "unitary executive branch". This

posits---quite wittingly illegally---that the Executive Branch is just another corporation, with Bush as the CEO who can fire, hire, and, especially, DECIDE what will be what.

[bigtree]

17. I still can't fathom what it means to 'supervise' the unitary executive

kinda overkill to say that he has the authority to do these things because of he's supposed to supervise himself (the office) I don't get what he's asserting here unless he's saying he can do what he wants because he's the boss of him.

[librechik]

26. such radical language is the hallmark of these thugs

it amazes me that these guys grew up in America. They don't have the slightest idea who we are as a country, what allows us to keep our freedoms. They are spoilers of the worst type.

[enough]

18. k&r

[MissWaverly]

19. I am sick of the unitary executive branch

it sounds like a sleazy savings and loan, the kind that charges you a service fee to use
their ATMs when you have your checking and savings account with their bank.

[Nothing Without Hope]

20. K & R - needs more publicity. Shocking but not surprising that this

is being ignored by the corporate press. Surely the public would be concerned by this language if they knew.

[bigtree]

21. I know

I watched the reports about the bill . . . no mention. But, like some of the posters say, it's just old news to the press. They won't touch it, I suppose, until something or someone challenges Bush directly on it.

[earth mom]

33. You hit the nail on the head! If ONLY the public knew about this....

and everything! :grr:

[Toots]

22. But do these "signing statements" actually carry any weight

Congress makes the laws the President only ratifies them with his signature. The President is obligated to obey the Law that the Congress wrote and he signed. If he doesn't like the way the Law is written he can veto it but he can not arbitrarily ignore it. At least that was the intent when the Constitution was written. This is one thing that needs to go to court even a rigged court because what this does in effect is give the President Law making authority which the Constitution does not. It will be interesting to hear the wingers on the Extreme Court wriggle their way out of this one...

[bigtree]

23. yes, if you accept that Bush is going to ignore Congress' intent

Say, for instance, that you find that he's done what he says in these statements. and he has ignored the provisions in the bill that intend to direct him . . .

What is the recourse? Congress could reassert themselves as they did with this trade provision. Apparently the provision is a correction to existing legislation they had passed. Yet, he still writes that he intends to ignore the legislation at his whim and will.

Of course, you could sue him, but, the conservative dominated Supreme Court has generally deferred to Bush on questions of Executive privilege.


here are some articles about court challenges to the signing statements:

Bar Association Task Force Urges Congress to Push for Judicial Review of Bush Signing Statements 21 July 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206A.shtml


Could Supreme Court Settle Presidential Signing Scrap? August 17, 2006

{snip}

Controversy over President George W. Bush's frequent and aggressive use of the statements to signal that he might not enforce bills he signed has gained momentum rapidly over recent months and could careen toward the Supreme Court itself -- with an uncertain fate.

A milestone in the dispute came Aug. 8, in Honolulu, of all places, at the annual convention of the ABA -- an organization that is typically capable of studying an issue to death over months and years. Just two months after then-ABA President Michael Greco appointed a task force to look into the controversy, the governing House of Delegates, meeting in Hawaii, overwhelmingly approved a strongly worded resolution opposing the "misuse" of presidential signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers."

The resolution said presidents who believe a law is unconstitutional should veto it, rather than issue a signing statement. The ABA also urged passage of a bill that would give members of Congress and others standing to challenge in court presidential signing statements that claim the authority to disregard part or all of a law.

full article: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1155732412882

[Nothing Without Hope]

36. The signing statements are there so that when (the neocons definitely

are planning on WHEN, not IF) there is a Bushie majority in the Supreme Court, these signing statements will become the official "law" of the land. Built on the ruins of the ex-Constitution.

One more SCOTUS judge, and they've got a 5-4 majority. Then you'll see lawsuits springing up, aiming for the SCOTUS to "legalize" the imperial, unaccountable, unchecked presidency. That will be the true end of democracy.

Never have congressional elections been more important. Not only did ALL the GOP Senators vote for cloture on the Alito confirmation, many nominally "Democratic" senators did as well. None of these GOPs and Dems should be voted into office again. Here is the Senate roll call on this crucial vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00001
Some, like Lieberman, are no surprise. But note that RObert Byrd, who is always extolling saving the constitution, also voted for Alito, who has never made any secret of his belief in the "unitary executive," i.e., an unchecked imperial president who can do ANYTHING. I believe Byrd to be a dangerous hypocrite and worse. Talk is cheap - it's those crucial votes that truly count. He made his true affiliation clear in the Alito vote and we cannot forget it.

[MrCoffee]

37. Here's why that won't happen...Marbury v. Madison

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." There isn't a court in this country that would allow a presidential signing statement to take precedence over an Act of Congress. Why not? Because it's an encroachment on the judiciary power as well. Courts decide what the law is, not the executive, and they guard that prerogative tooth and nail. This is a turf war, and the court is ALWAYS gonna win that fight.

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. I wish I could agree, but I believe the Bush 4 on the SCOTUS will indeed

vote to effectively replace a constitutional democracy with an imperial presidency. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, ROberts will all vote to give effectively unlimited powers to Bush, case by case. The neocons are banking on getting Bushie judge number 5. If it's another Alito, it's all over. And I believe that the willingness to give unchecked power to the president will be the primary basis for the nomination. It's up to us all to stop this process when it happens, and one of the other, sane judges is already 86 years old. Never have congressional elections been more important. This is it, folks, one way or the other.

[dogday]

25. Can I sign a statement saying I want this

Dictator out of office? :thumbsdown:



What do you get when you cross a penis with a potato?


A Dictator!!!!!!! :rofl:

[w4rma]

28. I suggest that once Democrats take power back, they pass a short law

clairifying that every single one of these signing statements are to be ignored because they are unconstitutional and if some idiot judge wants to treat it as constitutional then this law should explicitly state that the statments are illegal.

[earth mom]

34. What about Social Security???

Why do I feel like this b.s. is intended to also throw a monkey wrench into social security?!

Damn, these bastards are like a dog with a bone. They never give up until they get their way so that they can steal us blind and laugh all the way to the bank! :grr: