|
Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 08:44 PM by Divernan
in response to a thread raising the issue and asking whether court challenges were the way to go. (I'm a retired govt. lawyer whose work included drafting legislation)
"Reply #2: Problem with court challenges is threefold. Response to Original message 2. Problem with court challenges is threefold. Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 11:54 AM by Divernan
First, you have to find a case where the law was interpreted and applied as per the language of Bush's signing statement, and not the language of the legislation. Second, it could take years for a case like this to wend its way through the trial and appellate levels of the judicial system. Third, the court's decision could be held to apply only to the specific facts of that particular case and not applicable to the issue of whether a president can make signing statements under any circumstances. I'm wondering if language can be inserted into legislation that the application and interpretation of the law is governed entirely by the language within the "four corners" of the legislation as passed by the Congress, and is not subject to any further interpretation by the administrative branch. (Because there's nothing in the Constitution authorizing signing statements, as far as I know.)
The way this works at the state level, where Governors do not presume to issue "signing statements" is that if the law is too vague and results in conflicting interpretations by the courts, the state supreme court issues ITS interpretation (as part of an opinion) of what the legislators intended. Then if the state legislature disagrees with the state supreme court's interpretation, the Legislature has the option to AMEND the legislation to clarify its meaning and intent.
I do agree that this is as critical an issue as any facing the new Dem majority."
(Hi Don! Happy Days, kiddo!)
|