78% of Bush's signing statements "have raised constitutional or legal objections"
By SilentPatriot Wednesday Aug 20, 2008 5:40pmWhen President Bush receives a bill he doesn't like, instead of issuing a veto and challenging Congress to override him as School House Rock would have you believe, he issues a private "signing statement" setting forth how he plans on interpreting the new law. The House Armed Services Committee has just released a report on the practice and the conclusions are not encouraging.
The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week
“78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
“Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said.
As the report makes clear, not all signing statements are bad. Sometimes they're useful and entirely appropriate, and sometimes they're used for naked power grabs that are nearly impossible to challenge. Well, it appears 78% of President Bush's fall into the latter category.
That begs the obvious question: Which laws has Bush challenged?
1. A provision in the 2008 defense bill that would make it illegal to build permanent bases in Iraq. The White House is currently pushing for 58 bases.
2. A bill outlawing the use of torture on detainees. McCain did a lot of grandstanding on the day this law "passed," but he hasn't said anything since about Bush's refusal to abide it.
3. A provision in the Patriot Act that requires the White House to inform Congress on how the FBI was using it's new spying powers. This one naturally led to the FBI severely abusing their power.
You know what happens after the President is called out on his lawbreaking, right? The White House should expect Congress' Strongly Worded Letter™ any day now.
[HT: Satyam]
Login or Register to post comments.
This just in from Pelosi: Impeachment is Back on the Table!!
(psych!)
Impeachment is fitting for the crime.
"You know what happens after the President is called out on his lawbreaking, right? The White House should expect Congress’ Strongly Worded Letter™ any day now."
I believe Pelosi took Strongly Worded Letters off the table along with impeachment. Jeez-- we have an election to focus on!!
Our executive is too strong, and the impeachment has historically proven impotent. It is currently run by the Know Nothings.
Our Congress is not representative of either the people or the states they are supposed to represent. It is currently run by the Do Nothings.
The courts continue to interpret the Constitution to allow government all the power it wants, but presume that rights not enumerated do not exist.
Is it time for a Constitutional Convention?
If they are not careful, congress will subpoena them. BTW, When is Rove going to testify? Gutless....spineless.....useless.....impotent.....
I bet the neocons in the Congress will push to have the signing statements fully investigated and possibly reversed if Obama is elected president.
The American Bar Association recently declared that Bush’s signing statements are “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."
Since when has Bush -- and his supporters -- cared about rule of law or seperation of powers?
Nancy Pelosi thinks "High crimes and misdemeanors" is an old movie starring Cary Grant.
Good luck to the neocons on that one.
Not surprising they are so terrified of a Democrat as President
The dark force that is boosh & co. aren't going to flinch; they have zero respect for our way of life and democracy. They answer to lies, deception, and darkness.
If you want to lend a hand in getting this country on the right road again, send 'em all a lot of LIGHT.
This is how the Bush "administration" succeeds in sneaking its radical agenda past the smell-test sensors. Time after time, they rely on secrecy, misrepresentation and kicking the ball down the field.
I've been outraged about Junior's misuse of signing statements for more than two years. And now... finally, it turns out that 78% probably involve shocking abuses of the Constitution.
Better late than never, I guess
The White House should expect Congress’ Strongly Worded Letter™ any day now.
Gee, I bet the WarPigs are simply terrified beyond words....yeah whatever. Congress isn't worth shit. The only thing they are good at is collecting their salaries and raiding the treasury. Oh,and being Dick and George's bitches.
So.....
lmab @ 5:
how about....
collaborative, accessory after the fact, aid and abet?
[You're banned, bucko-Sitemonitor]
The actions of the Democrats since 2006 sure don't live up to the bluster of the 2005 campaign. I imagine Conyers is walking with a gimp in his gait having that subpeona stuck up his ass for quite a while now.
We have become that which we most feared a decade ago. Thanks to Bush and those that elected (?) him, we are now a fascist state.
That second one on torture was a particularly sneaky operation. The signing statement was slipped in just before midnight on New Year's Eve, while the entire press corps was out getting hammered.
Does it matter? It was clear the coup was successful. game over. Country done. move on. Nothing to see here.
Karen @ 4:
yeah, right.
you would need to apply the Declaration of Independence before that.
Its the only thing that trumps the Constitution.
Question? When bush leaves office in Jan. 09 and Obama is sworn in as new Prez.,
are ALL of the 150 "signing statments" issued by bush still in full force and affect, OR
do they become moot(non-binding legally) and then Obama can disregard the signing
statement(toss them in a garbage can) and let the passed legislation(to which t he
signing statment were attached) be enforced as passed and intended? Hope that is
clear
I blame congress for letting the worst president in our history take over the country without firing a shot. By that I mean they should have impeached him a long time ago.
greatdogs @ 15:
Conyers?
All show...
He is in a privileged position. On the steps of the Masters house. Not in it, but close enough for his satisfaction.
Remember...
the took infiltrated and took down the Black Panther and the other radical elements by using cooperative Blacks who would sell out to the government to do the governments dirty work - COINTELPRO.
As if anything will be done about it.
All this brings us back to the early tell-tale signs.
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
Wow, such a lengthy and damning report, a whole four pages. Devastating!
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." Adolf Hitler.
Southern Yankee @ 22:
Ditto
Doggiebobo @ 21:
Well, 30 minutes has elapsed since I sent above and NO response, so guess everyone is in the dark as I am.....
Impeach my ass. Americans love this stuff.
Truth B Told @ 20:
Notwithstanding that the likelihood of holding a Constitutional Convention is very small (and that it might not even be wise at this point in time), I'm not sure what you're point is.
The Constitution itself provides the procedures for amending the Constitution, one being a convention to draft amendments or a new Constitution.
So Bush can and did hold the laws invalid by a bunch of BS and the whole Congress never caught on? What a bunch of crap. And how many NO BID CONTRACTS were let to the friends of these corrupt people at the cost to the taxpayer? Pelosi Reid and the rest are too incompetent to add it up as the criminals laugh at the taxpayers.
John - really disappointed by the Democratic Party @ 31:
Oh, "Congress caught on" to signing statements because Prez.(whomever that person
is) is required to notify both the House/Senate (and even the media I think) when a
signing statement is attached to a piece of legislation. This is not a new procedure;
has been done going back 20 plus years, it's just that bush did it w/much more frequency and many of his actions are questioned as to being constitutional or legal.
But he's
The DeciderGod!Ooooh they've "raised objections." Heavens to Betsy, that's strong language. Maybe you should do something about it (besides noting it).
[You know, Blowhole, your comment was fine until you bashed people with liberal views using a gross, inaccurate generalization. I invite you to take it elsewhere-SItemonitor]
78% of Bush's signing statements have raised constitutional or legality issues?
That's nothing. 99% of his presidency has done the same...
JimboSlice @ 25:
Zieg Heil, mein Fuhrer.
hmmm....78% constutionally iffy signing statements vs. an about equal disapproval poll rating. interesting coinkydink
"On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,”
no shit sherlock.
after 7+ years this is what they figured out?
dear gawd......they're...*gulp*...literally going to have to look at *everything* this retards touched over the past 8 years. *choke*...78% failure rate...
.
Since when can the President of the USA DICTATE the law?
If you're not outraged, you're not awake.
Dennis Kucinich has a petition and is looking for a few Patriots...
http://www.kucinich.us/
He's seeking to gain 1,000,000 signatures by September 10, 2008
SIGN IT!
.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 27:
I'll Ditto that Ditto!
Complicity requires keeping promises to do nothing to stop it.
JUST HOW ARE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA WHEN THEY(sic) HAVE SHOWN THE CAPACITY TO HAVE MENTAL RESERVATIONS AND PROPOSE PURPOSES OF EVASION AT FAITHFULLY PROTECTING THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION FROM ENEMIES FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC?
Sorry for the super bold, however I fear far too many constituients of these complicit members of Congress lack the wisdom and strength to act accountability and with a moral OBLIGATION to vote the complicit majority out and into jail.
Great, we have a higher minimum wage... how does this protect me from a dictatorship?
Great, districts are getting funding for bridges... how does this provide me redress against Constitutional violations?
WHICH CAME FIRST?
The Constitution or the Lobbyist?
.
78% of his signing statements have raised constitutional questions? That's nothing!
How about 100% of his presidency?
Has the Bushco fraud not been crystal clear since the "Supreme" Court pissed on the will of the people and handed the Pretender-in-Chief the keys to the White House?
I am so tired. This should be on the evening news, everyone should know about this but they will never hear it. When I try to tell people they back away in fear with their hands over their ears, afraid that you might enlighten them to what is happening around them. They want to be blind because they can't be bothered to think. Knowing the crimes of this administration and knowing the democrats are just sitting there letting it pass makes me so sick I almost wish I could go back to being ignorant and not have to process this. I am weary of watching my country turn to shit in front of my eyes.
Here's an idea--end forever the ability of presidents to have signing statements. it's a bullshit tactic, no matter who is employing it.
Problem solved.
Bush/Cheney may not only be the worst leaders in American history, they may well be the most criminal. Will we ever know? I bet right now plans are in hand to shred, shred, shred the evidence away.
Addendums (signing statements) can supercede the typed words of a signed document. The handwritten part of any signed document can essentially nullify a typed legal document. (This is obvious one thing Bush learned at business school)
Basically what it creates as a signing statement is it can significantly change the meaning and intent of the bill as written by the legislature, can nullify the bill, provide an addendum which can supercede the meaning of the bill. It is frequently done in business or contractual law, in order to provide an "out" for a signee to a contract.
However, an addendum is NOT an ammendment, it is part of the original document, which creates a constitutional question as to legitimacy (president cannot WRITE law).
Doggiebobo @ 21:
I’m no lawyer, but signing statements have no force of law. Bush may do as he wishes, but he does so at his own risk. When congress holds him accountable, the signing statements become null and void. That should happen any time now…
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 40:
Even if your cynicism tells you impeachment is not going to happen, if you personally believe that the President George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and has shredded our constitution and our civil liberties, then you MUST sign this. Come on people. Stand up for what YOU believe in, regardless if you think our Congress is a sham and won't act on this — sending 1 million signatures to Nancy Pelosi will send a very strong message.
Please, SIGN IT!!!
Login or Register to post comments.