Comments on: White House Signing Statements “Unsubstantiated,” Report Says http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/08/signing_statements.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:31:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Just a gigolo - “He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.” « The Long Goodbye http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/08/signing_statements.html/comment-page-1#comment-1820 Just a gigolo - “He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.” « The Long Goodbye Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:47:11 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=1881#comment-1820 [...] The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released a report on Bush’s presidential signing statements, While presidents have issued signing statements for quite some time, this President has issued a significantly larger percentage of signing statements challenging or objecting to various provisions of the law. The Congressional Research Service has reviewed the last 15 years of National Defense Authorization Acts and determined that every one has been accompanied by a signing statement expressing constitutional concerns, whether signed into law by President Clinton or President Bush. However, when reviewing all signing statements issued in the past 15 years, 78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s. In fact, more than 1,000 distinct provisions of law have been called into question in the Bush Administration’s signing statements for a variety of reasons. [...] [...] The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released a report on Bush’s presidential signing statements, While presidents have issued signing statements for quite some time, this President has issued a significantly larger percentage of signing statements challenging or objecting to various provisions of the law. The Congressional Research Service has reviewed the last 15 years of National Defense Authorization Acts and determined that every one has been accompanied by a signing statement expressing constitutional concerns, whether signed into law by President Clinton or President Bush. However, when reviewing all signing statements issued in the past 15 years, 78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s. In fact, more than 1,000 distinct provisions of law have been called into question in the Bush Administration’s signing statements for a variety of reasons. [...]

]]> By: Brian de Ford http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/08/signing_statements.html/comment-page-1#comment-1818 Brian de Ford Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:28:06 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=1881#comment-1818 The report omits to mention an incredibly important detail about signing statements. As the report states, they can be used to indicate that the President finds the legislation to be ambiguous in some way and to tell Congress which way he (or, one day, she) intends to interpret the ambiguity until and unless Congress amends the legislation to remove the ambiguity. If Congress does not amend the legislation it implicitly accepts the President's interpretation; of Congress amends the legislation and resolves the ambiguity in the opposite way to that chosen by the President, the President must then comply. So far, so good. The report also states that a signing statement can be used to negate Congress's wishes. What it omits to state is that Congress then has options which it is then constitutionally REQUIRED to take: 1st step: informal talk with President asking him to withdraw the signing statement (or sign another statement renouncing the first, or whatever the legal procedure is)· The Constitution does not require this but common sense and common courtesy dictate an informal approach first. 2nd step, taken in the event that the 1st step is ignored: pass an amendment stating in no uncertain terms that the objectionable clauses in the signing statement are illegal and that the President absolutely must follow the intent of the original bill. The Constitution does not require this, never having anticipated signing statements, and this step could therefore be skipped. Again, common sense and common courtesy dictate that Congress assume the President is acting out of good intentions until proven otherwise. 3rd step, taken in the event that the 2nd step is ignored: IMPEACHMENT. It is the constitutional DUTY of Congress to impeach a President who does not fully uphold legislation passed by Congress, for only Congress has the power to enact legislation and only the Supreme Court has the power to decree legislation to be unconstitutional (but Congress then has the power to amend the Constitution, with the consent of the various states). The President's ONLY power is to veto a bill IN ITS ENTIRETY, but there are procedures by which Congress (with sufficient votes) can over-ride the veto. If the President chooses to ignore part of a bill he is as much a criminal as if you or I choose to ignore it. It is STILL illegal if the President does it, no matter what Nixon said and Cheney continues to believe. Impeachment is the only cure for Cheney and his sock-puppet turning the US into a fascist dictatorship. And there are so many high crimes and misdemeanours they could be impeached for. Such a long list that it would be shorter to list all the activities they have performed which are not impeachable - in Bush's case taking a nap, picking a fight with a pretzel and picking his nose are the only three that spring to mind. In Cheney's case breathing is the only one, and even that is debatable. The report omits to mention an incredibly important detail about signing statements.

As the report states, they can be used to indicate that the President finds the legislation to be ambiguous in some way and to tell Congress which way he (or, one day, she) intends to interpret the ambiguity until and unless Congress amends the legislation to remove the ambiguity. If Congress does not amend the legislation it implicitly accepts the President’s interpretation; of Congress amends the legislation and resolves the ambiguity in the opposite way to that chosen by the President, the President must then comply. So far, so good.

The report also states that a signing statement can be used to negate Congress’s wishes. What it omits to state is that Congress then has options which it is then constitutionally REQUIRED to take:

1st step: informal talk with President asking him to withdraw the signing statement (or sign another statement renouncing the first, or whatever the legal procedure is)· The Constitution does not require this but common sense and common courtesy dictate an informal approach first.

2nd step, taken in the event that the 1st step is ignored: pass an amendment stating in no uncertain terms that the objectionable clauses in the signing statement are illegal and that the President absolutely must follow the intent of the original bill. The Constitution does not require this, never having anticipated signing statements, and this step could therefore be skipped. Again, common sense and common courtesy dictate that Congress assume the President is acting out of good intentions until proven otherwise.

3rd step, taken in the event that the 2nd step is ignored: IMPEACHMENT.

It is the constitutional DUTY of Congress to impeach a President who does not fully uphold legislation passed by Congress, for only Congress has the power to enact legislation and only the Supreme Court has the power to decree legislation to be unconstitutional (but Congress then has the power to amend the Constitution, with the consent of the various states). The President’s ONLY power is to veto a bill IN ITS ENTIRETY, but there are procedures by which Congress (with sufficient votes) can over-ride the veto.

If the President chooses to ignore part of a bill he is as much a criminal as if you or I choose to ignore it. It is STILL illegal if the President does it, no matter what Nixon said and Cheney continues to believe.

Impeachment is the only cure for Cheney and his sock-puppet turning the US into a fascist dictatorship. And there are so many high crimes and misdemeanours they could be impeached for. Such a long list that it would be shorter to list all the activities they have performed which are not impeachable – in Bush’s case taking a nap, picking a fight with a pretzel and picking his nose are the only three that spring to mind. In Cheney’s case breathing is the only one, and even that is debatable.

]]> By: Zev Mo Bloggin’ » Blog Archive » 78% of Bush’s signing statements “have raised constitutional or legal objections” http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/08/signing_statements.html/comment-page-1#comment-1816 Zev Mo Bloggin’ » Blog Archive » 78% of Bush’s signing statements “have raised constitutional or legal objections” Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:04:32 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=1881#comment-1816 [...] From the report (.pdf) The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week “78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.” “Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said. [...] [...] From the report (.pdf) The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week “78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.” “Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said. [...]

]]>