Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
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.