Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Grasswire2

(13,571 posts)
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:29 PM Mar 2020

Politico article on Trump POWER GRAB in SIGNING STATEMENT


son of a bitch -- this is why Pelosi was not invited.


[link:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/27/trump-congress-coronavirus-relief-oversight-152560|



But in a signing statement issued shortly after he approved the bill, Trump says he'll be the last word on whether this provision is followed.

"I do not understand, and my Administration will not treat, this provision as permitting the [inspector general] to issue reports to the Congress without the presidential supervision required" by Article II of the Constitution, Trump said in the signing statement.

Trump also indicated he would treat as optional a requirement in the bill that key congressional committees be consulted before Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development spends or reallocates certain funds.

"These provisions are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement with respect to the execution of the laws," Trump says in the statement.
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Politico article on Trump POWER GRAB in SIGNING STATEMENT (Original Post) Grasswire2 Mar 2020 OP
I don't know how much weight signing statements carry captain queeg Mar 2020 #1
Legal significance elleng Mar 2020 #6
Katie Porter just discussed this, elleng Mar 2020 #2
Did I understand her to just say.. Duppers Mar 2020 #7
take him directly to court. expose/fight it. spanone Mar 2020 #3
I'd hope the court went with oversight jimfields33 Mar 2020 #14
I'm disgusted hangaleft Mar 2020 #4
He didn't write that. His smarmy WH lawyers did. CousinIT Mar 2020 #16
Of course! I know he didn't write it. hangaleft Mar 2020 #17
That means he negotiated in bad faith. nt. andym Mar 2020 #5
He didn't negotiate, Senate repugs did. elleng Mar 2020 #8
I thought Trump's Secretary of the Treasury was involved implicitly andym Mar 2020 #11
Yes, it seems mnuchin was involved. elleng Mar 2020 #12
The story of his life JDC Mar 2020 #13
I had a hunch. kentuck Mar 2020 #9
+1 Cetacea Mar 2020 #10
We can always count on Trump to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. Marie Marie Mar 2020 #15
No funding until he rescinds it. How about that. C_U_L8R Mar 2020 #18

elleng

(130,954 posts)
6. Legal significance
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:34 PM
Mar 2020

'No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. However, there is also no part of the Constitution that grants legal value to signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, to sign it, or to do nothing. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not.

Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.[citation needed] There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive's position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive's view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.

Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies' usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action.'>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

elleng

(130,954 posts)
2. Katie Porter just discussed this,
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:32 PM
Mar 2020

on MSNBC (Lawrence show.)

Essentially, Congress will do it's oversight work regardless.

Duppers

(28,125 posts)
7. Did I understand her to just say..
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:37 PM
Mar 2020

That the bill allows Steve Mnuchin to give money to whomever he pleases now without sufficient oversight yet in place?

Please tell me I misheard.

jimfields33

(15,809 posts)
14. I'd hope the court went with oversight
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:06 PM
Mar 2020

Problem is that the last two presidents used signing documents a number of times.

 

hangaleft

(649 posts)
4. I'm disgusted
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:33 PM
Mar 2020

What’s laughable is his citations to the Constitution, which he disregards and violates on a daily basis.

CousinIT

(9,245 posts)
16. He didn't write that. His smarmy WH lawyers did.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:23 PM
Mar 2020

He only asked them to write something legal that said he didn't have to follow the law after it was signed.

 

hangaleft

(649 posts)
17. Of course! I know he didn't write it.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:28 PM
Mar 2020

He has the vocabulary of a third grader. A dumb third grader.

I apologize to all third graders for having insulted them.

andym

(5,443 posts)
11. I thought Trump's Secretary of the Treasury was involved implicitly
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 10:50 PM
Mar 2020

I thought that essentially the Democratic and Republican senators negotiated but didn't the Republicans included Mnuchin in on the discussions, as Trump's interests had to be satisfied with his explicit approval needed to proceed.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Politico article on Trump...