Here's an interesting question re: "Signing Statments"....

[TygrBright]

...as I was pondering what the new Congress will need to do to restore checks and balances. One of the first things that popped into my head was "SIGNING STATEMENTS."

These little snarky end runs around the legislative process for the Executive Branch are at the very core of the Urinary --excuse me, Unitary-- Executive power grab. So what can Congress do about them?

I don't THINK they can pass a law making them illegal, since such a blatant attempt to restrain executive power would be just as much a violation of checks and balances as the Executive use of the statements to circumvent legislative power. I'd hope we wouldn't go down that road.

And, of course, waiting for the Supreme Parish Elders --excuse me, that would be Court-- to act would be an exercise in futility.

So, how to do it, how to do it.... hmmmmmm...

Well. What power does Congress still unequivocally have?

Purse.

How about this? From now on, to every single bill that entails the appropriation and/or allocation of funds, a provision is included, to the effect that if the Executive attaches a "Signing Statement" to the bill, the bill will be invalid, and no funds will be allocated and/or appropriated under its provisions?

Anyone else have any ideas? I'm sure the best minds in our Congressional delegations are already at work on this one, but it's an interesting question for everyone to be thinking about, too.

speculatively,
Bright

[rock]

1. Yikes Tygr, that would be hard-ball.

[TygrBright]

2. Indeed. And your point is? n/t

[grizmaster]

3. There was just such an attachment on one of the bills bush signed recently

and I believe he just wrote another signing statement claiming dictatorial powers again. If memory serves it was a budget bill.

[TygrBright]

5. Yes, but with a Dem-controlled Congress...

...they could follow through and keep the cash from flowing. The current crop of GOPpies are just posturing.

Mind, I don't know we'd be able to keep it up for long or do it on everything, but there are likely some pretty good high-profile opportunities coming up during mid-fiscal-year adjustments.

interestedly,
Bright

[Hosnon]

4. Great idea. I think the Court will invalidate them eventually though as

line item vetos.

[TygrBright]

6. Maybe so, but who wants to wait...

...several decades until we have a functional, objective Court again?

pessimistically,
Bright

[Hosnon]

9. Not me. But I don't think it will take that long. The ACLU and other

organizations hopefully are flooding the courts with cases...the Supreme Court is bound to deal with it within the next five years, in my opinion.

But, in the meantime, I think your idea is wonderful and should be undertaken by a Democratically controlled Congress.

The bigger this issue becomes, the more likely the Court is to address it, and end the controversy once and for all.

[soothsayer]

7. Ok, but what will keep the prez from issuing a signing statement

when he's signing into law the bill that says you can't issues signing statements?

[TygrBright]

8. No such bill. Read carefully. n/t

[soothsayer]

16. I was offering a hypothetical for a hypothetical (saying why there

could never be any such bill because the signing statement would negate it)

Get it It's like God creating a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. A paradox!

[WHAT]

15. what if congress passes a law ...

that causes the president to receive an electrical shock every time he signs a signing statement? The law could be written so that the voltage would be incrementally increased with every signing statement signed so that the more such statements he signs the bigger the shock...so that if he persists, eventually...(the end)

just giggling, here

[soothsayer]

17. Now THAT I like!

[Hosnon]

10. I'm beginning to wonder though that such a provision would itself

be unconstitutional. Give me a bit to flesh it out though...

However, it wouldn't matter. To be deemed unconstitutional, the issue would have to reach the Supreme Court...where I think BOTH would be deemed unconstitutional and Congress would win.

EDIT: It seems it would be unconstitutional for the same reason. The bill is either signed as is or not...I'm not sure Congress can constitutionally give the President A, B and C provisions in a bill and say that if he signs (thereby making it law) but adds a signing statement invalidating C the whole bill is void. Seems fishy for the same reason.

[TygrBright]

11. Oh, I agree, the whole thing stinks like last week's haddock...

...but this seems to be a win/win for Congress, in that either they do effectively bring the "signing statement" crap to an end with financial pressure, or the Parish Elders --pardon, Court-- simply can't ignore the whole thing any longer and finally has to take it up. And if they come down on the side of the Executive, permitting "signing statements," they by implication enable the financial pressure mechanism.

Even some of the neanderthals in robes can read those tea leaves. They'd be in a corner where the only realistic choice would be to boot BOTH tactics out, and restore checks and balances.

hopefully,
Bright

[Hosnon]

12. Yep. This does appear to be a win/win for Congress if they actually

get off their collective duffs and do something about it.

Do you know if there are any lawsuits challenging the signing statements?

[Igel]

13. Signing statements aren't in the Constitution.

But nobody's going to outlaw signing statements. They're altogether too useful.

[Hosnon]

14. Many things are not explicitly in the Constitution, yet still

Constitutional.

Congress can't "outlaw" signing statements. It's up to the Supreme Court to deem them Unconstitutional.

They may be useful to the President but he is not the final authority on the issue.