This should trouble anyone: signing statements
 

Signing statements aren't new in this administration, but there have now been over 750 instances of GWB signing a law and claiming an executive exception.

This is almost funny when the law is specifically passed to control a presidential decision and the president signs it while claiming it's null and void.

Here's the latest: Congress passed a law requiring minimum qualifications for anyone selected to head FEMA. Dubya said it doesn't apply to him.

---------------excerpt---------------
Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law
Signing statement is employed again

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | October 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.

Full article:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/06/bush_cites_authority_to_bypass_fema_law/
------------------------------

The mainstream media seem reluctant to comment on signing statements or recess appointments, or any of the other little chicken***** maneuvers this president pulls to avoid standing up for his opinions/choices.

YOU ANTI AMERICAN COMMIE PINKO!!!!


The Emperor is not subject to the laws that his mere mortal peons are.

The FEMA thing is the least of executive order outrages and they go way back through many presidents. With all the ammo Bush gives you, do you really have to go looking for more? Clinton had quite a few as well.

Oh but it's okay because the Republicans are about personal accountability. . . except when it applies to them. But that's not important. . .

Who said anything about that? What are you talking about and what does this have to do with partisan politics? Every president has done it and will continue to do it. Unless you were equally outraged by Clinton's exec. orders AND pardons, you don't make a lot of sense.

Re: This should trouble anyone: signing statements
 

Yet, Congress has given Bush II new authority to arrest and detain, without habeas corpus, anyone he chooses; so obviously these signing statements don't concern them at all.

If Caligula were elected, would they act to restrain him? I doubt it.

kinda like crossing your fingers when making a deal
or some other little kid trick to avoid the rules of the game
the neo-conned donot belive personal accountability
honesty or fisical accountability applys to them
but demand it from everyone else

and shut up about clinton he is so 6 years ago
and we are talking about NOW not the past

Oh, but we are talkng about the past because Bush did not invent executive orders and to the best of my knowledge, has used far fewer of them than many of his predecessors. It's just more evididence that the knee-jerk Bush haters will never accept anything as long as Bush's fingerprints are on it. Did you whine when Clinton did the same thing? C'mon, humor me.

I suppose knee jerk Clinton hating is better than knee jerk Bush hating?

IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!

Maybe if I keep posting that over and over again the Clinton haters will change their minds.

Nah, I'm still pissed at Ford for banning assassinations by exec order. Plenty of blame to go around.

Prior Presidents didn't use signing statements even a fraction as often as Bush does. 750 to date for W, vs <200 for Clinton, and used more aggressively. Interestingly, now-Justice Alioto first proposed expanded use of signing statements during the Reagan Administration, so there's at least one Justice who might think these statements actually have any legal effect. There otherwise isn't much support for the idea that these statements have meaning.

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

President Washington was a pot head. :p

I didn't know there was a difference between signing statements and exec. orders, but the Wikipedia article says there is. Plenty of exec. orders have undone predecessors' exec. orders. Kinda ironic how they're wrong if you disagree with them or disapprove of the number of times they were used. They're either right or wrong, legal or illegal. It's got nothing to do with which pres. uses them.

Not only didn't anyone claim Bush invented signing statements, the thread-starting post states that fact.

As for other presidents approaching Dubya's record number of signing statements, You'd need to add all of them together to surpass GWB's number. And the number of direct constitutional challenges is much higher under Dubya.

Here is a good discussion on the topic:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

Rick appears confused between Signing Statements and Executive Orders. Two very, very different things.

The power grabs by this president have been unprecedented. Another reason we need to balance our government with a Dem Congress.

O.k. guys; I'm really fuzzy on this, so maybe you can help me out. Wasn't there some kind of expansion of Executive power granted by Congress to FDR as an expedient for use during wartime? From my fuzzy recollection, is not that expansion of power soley up to the Exective branch to relinquish if and when it sees fit? It's my understanding that no one has relinquished it yet, so it is still in effect. Am I all wet, or is there something to this?

Does it have anything to do with what Dubya is up to with these signing statements? What is the history of these; i.e. who first used them and what was their original intent? I can see where a President can, and should, possibly issue a non-binding statement concerning his views on any bill he signs; kind of footnotes that neither add nor detract from the bill. It sounds like what he is doing is some kind of illegal perversion of what might originally been a useful tool. It sounds like signing statements may have been on this path for some time and no one has really challenged the President on their use in the past, but now that Dubya is pushing the envelope on them, this practice has been given the scrutiny it probably needs.

The War Powers Act of 1933, as updated and amended several times. It's blatantly unConstitutional since Congress can't grant a power itself holds via the Constitution to another branch, but that's what the act does. Several legislators took a case to court over the act (not long ago), but the Supremes said that they weren't going to get involved in what they see as an argument between the executive and the legislative branches. In other words, shirking their duty.

An unbelievable number of crimes have been and are being commited under the power granted the executive branch via that act.

It is clear that the US lost interest in serious accountability and non-partisan (institutional) checks and balances when Congress began to allow the Pres to engage in War without formal Declaration. Have we yet won a War that was pursued under authority of the War Powers Act (or VN's GoT Resolution, or the Patriot Act...)? In fact, it seems that both branches are loath to honor their Constitutional duties on any important matter anymore.

The late 20th Century power grab by the Exec Branch, using Signing Statements and Executive Orders as a means to circumvent consensus policy-making is a tragic evolution of our Nation from Republic to Empire.

Divide & Conquer has vanquished E Pluribus Unum.

Signing statements are not related to Executive Orders.

The latter are the President's decisions on matters that the Executive branch controls. Typically directing agency decisions, e.g. create a wilderness area.

The former are a President's attempt to modify or limit a law that the Legislative branch has passed.

The system in our country is: Legislative (Congress) makes the laws, Judicial (Courts) interpret the laws, Executive (President and agencies) enforce the laws. Making laws is NOT part of the Executive's power, which makes these signing statements controversial.

Read the wiki article I linked, it is a good discussion, including of the history.

More broadly - in my opinion, Bush and his Administration are out of control in their drive to increase the power of the Presidency.

In the US system, the President already has incredible power. He has virtually complete control over warmaking and foreign policy. He controls, through his cabinet and agency heads, a huge federal government with tens of millions of employees involved in almost every part of our lives. He is the leader of his political party, and as such has huge influence over about 1/2 of the nation's Congressmen. In Bush's case, his party controls both houses of Congress as well.

Yet, Bush and his people seem determined with further increasing the President's power. Cheney in particular has been obsessed with this.

So the Administration has taken the legal position that the President has "inherent authority" to take whatever actions he deems necessary that are arguably related to national security. This is the main argument used to support the warrantless wiretapping program, the indefinite detentions without trial, and the torture at secret prisons.

However, the inherent authority claim doesn't apply to laws or matters unrelated to national security (at least, so far they haven't tried to make the argument). So the Administration has vastly expanded the program of "signing statements", as an attempt to modify and limit all laws.

To date, the Supreme Court has been somethng of a barrier to the Administration's power expansion. However, with his two appointments, Bush may have solved that problem. Justice Alito in particular was active in efforts to expand the Presidency's power, back in the Reagan days.

Whatever you think of Bush, I contend it is dangerous and unwise for the office of the Presidency to accumulate so much power. If you adore Bush and think its great for him and Cheney have such power, consider how you'll feel when the next Clinton takes office and becomes armed with these powers.

A wise President with a sense of history would recognize the need for balance in our government. He would resist the temptations to seize powers. Bush is an extremely unwise person. Whether he is personally power-hungry, or simply being led around by his advisers, the end effect is the same.

Its amazing, we can deplore the power grab that Putin is making in Russia, and not recognize what is going on right here at home.