What is the legal standing of "Signing Statements"?

I understand we've had several presidents do them, including Clinton. I understand that * has down twice as many in 5 years as all those dome previously.

I understand that they are used by * to totally reverse the actual intent of the law.

What I don't understand is where the legal theory that this was acceptable came from...and more crucial, why hasn't it been challenged since it sure appears to be a fundamental violation of the seperation of powers. Wouldn't any congress person have legal standing to challenge a law they write or pass if he marks it up? Seems like something SCOTUS would want to rule on quickly. But I hear NOTHING. I can't, for the life of me, understand why I haven't heard about a congressional legal challenge to this before...YEARS before.

And since it seems like such a clear violation of the constitution, has any congress person offered up legislation specifically invalidating presidential signing statements?

If not...then congress needs to be held accountable right along with *.

I'm not confused about why * would be trying to do this...I'm utterly befuddled over how everyone has been so quiet and passive while he's been doing it. Seems like it would literally be meaningless scribbles that could be legally ignored. But strangely it isn't.

and he's abused it beyond belief, but, hey, he's got the pen, so he can do whatever he wants while Congress rolls over and plays dead.

That's how this happened.

Ask the press. Did they know about it? How come it's just being reported now, as Fuckface plummets to the ground?

Ask the press.

Ask your Congressman and Senators.

They let him get away with everything.

was it just the case that no one had told a president they couldn't mark up a bill? Or has it been tested or is there an administrative order? It boggles my mind...and I'm trying to kick my coffee habit.

I agree he can get away with whatever he wants when congress rolls over and the press kiss his ass, at least until the peasants pull out torches and pitchforks...but I still don't see it as legal unless some law somewhere grants him that power.

If not then damn lets make a law clarifying his clarifications!

From what I understand, SCOTUS still determines the constitutionality of laws. Signing statements are a way to give the president's interpretation of the law more weight, should it come before the Court, instead of them just relying on the congressional record. The court doesn't have to pay any attention.

as advice, when it's clearly written in the law as compulsory. Read a few and you'll see they're pretty redundant, and mostly state that his office will tell congress what he wants when he wants regardless of the law.

He knows he's going to ignore them, and he believes there is some legal benefit to saying he is going to ignore them before he ignores them.

It's like pulling up to a cop and saying "I swear to God I think the speed limit here is 110 miles an hour," and then zipping off.

Except in Bush's case, it might work.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

allow themselves to be rendered impotent.

This is part of Cheney's longer-term "Presidential Powers" strategery. They keep making them more and more absurd, hoping one will make it to the SCOTUS...but they've been hoping to get one more lock vote in the "strict constructionists" column who'll vote for the Unitary Executive theory. IOW, President as King.

It is actually quite scary, and another reason why it is incomprehensible that the democrats keep rolling over and allowing Bush to hand the courts to his cronies and rubber-stampers. Because the first case will work its way through appellate courts, which Bush has been very successful at packing, before it lands on the docket before Alito and Roberts. And by then, we'll be fucked.

congress often often attaches a statement of intent to a bill. it's not a part of the law, but it helps a court understand what congress's intent was, which MAY influence the court's ultimate decision in a case concerning that law.

the presidential signing statement is made in a similar vein to indicate the president's "intent" in signing the bill into law.

courts MAY take that into consideration in interpreting the law, but the courts are not obligated to do so.

obviously if the signing statement says something completely contrary to the letter of the law, the courts can and should ignore the signing statement.

Samuel Alito

what a guy....

my suspicion from now until they are out of office. Every Democratic senator should have been brawling in the halls to be the first to filibuster, but NOOOOOOO!:grr:

Until recently (although BEFORE the press actually reported on Bush's seemingly excessive use of them) I never even knew they existed and I have no idea WHAT legal reasoning allows him to do so(although I'm sure Bush would say that it has SOMETHING to do with his so-called authority as "Commander-in-Chief"). I always thought that the Presidential Oath of Office had SOMETHING to do with upholding the laws and the Constitution of this country and from what I can remember from Social Studies class that Congress writes the laws, the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional, and the President is supposed to, in theory, enforce the laws of the land. If he does not like legislation as Congress has written it, then he can, in theory, veto the bill and send it back to Congress and see if his veto will be overridden or let it become law without his signature (Pocket Veto). Of course, if the bill becomes law, then he is, in theory, duty bound to obey and enforce the law. Of course, everything has been more or less turned on its head by Bush who seems hell-bent on the running the country any way he (and his administration) see fit no matter what his approval ratings are. I would be interested to find out more about how other Presidents have used these so-called "signing statements." I find it particularly interesting that the Republicans never knew about and/or got upset about Clinton's signing statements. That seems like something that the Republicans would have been bleating about during his presidency. If a President wants to issue his/her written opinion about a law along with their approval(or disapproval) thereof, I don't see what the problem is with that BUT I don't believe that the President(be they Democrat or Republican) can arbitrarily decide whether or not to enforce the law (or portions thereof). If the legislation given to him by Congress is objectionable to Bush, whether it is on moral, philosophical, or constitutional grounds, then he already has the power and prerogative to veto the legislation but he is duty-bound to enforce it (in toto) if he signs it or if his veto is overridden by Congress. Of course, upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws is probably "hard work" for Bush! :shrug:

but I was always under the concrete impression that the President had two things he could do with a Bill...Sign, or Veto...interpretation was always entirely up to the Courts. Well cept for now of course.

And amazingly we didn't apparently have to pass or ammend anything. Breathtaking really.

But also seemingly easy to fix. One law saying NO SIGNING STATEMENTS ANYMORE!

Given the apparent ease with which this assumptive power can be abused you wouldn't think ANY congress person would want ANY president to have it...so perhaps we need to find someone to author such an obviously popular measure?

I would say he is in serious trouble on this matter. Presidential powers are very narrowly defined. Among the three branches, by far the most power is given to Congress. Every branch of government is under the oversight of Congress. Every law passed by Congress, assuming it is not successfully vetoed or struck down by the courts, must be executed by the executive branch. The president does not have the power to determine whether or not he will obey a law. Sure, he can write whether he likes the law or not. That's the right of every citizen. However, there is no basis whatsoever for the president openly disobeying acts of Congress.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

This is a memo prepared by Walter Dellinger, then assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration's Justice Department. Later Dellinger served as Solicitor General. He draws a distinction between four types of "signing statements", noting varying levels of controversy as to their validity/legitimacy.

onenote

nt

Bush decides everything. Get used to it.

more than all the other presidents combined tells you all you need to know.

It's like a pair of dice with nothing but snake eyes on them.