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.
|
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.