President's signing statements examined

[ckramer]

New House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., used his first oversight hearing Wednesday to say he's starting an investigation into President Bush's possible abuse of presidential signing statements.

Democrats and some Republican lawmakers have accused Bush of conducting an imperial presidency by using bill-signing statements to declare that he'll interpret legislative provisions his way and will feel free to ignore some terms.

Though some influential Republicans, such as Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., have railed against Bush's signing statements, several House Judiciary Committee Republicans balked Wednesday, describing Conyers' hearing as political fishing expeditions.

Some legal experts disagree, saying Bush's assertion of this arguable executive authority undercuts Congress and enhances the power of the president beyond the limits set by the Constitution.

Bush has issued 147 signing statements, according to Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003550503_watch01.html

[journalist3072]

1. Possible abuse? How about DEFINITE abuse?

This man has used signing statements to declare himself above the law--to saw he is not obligated to abide by whatever it was that he just signed into law.

That is not what our founding fathers intended for this country.

[Bluestater2008]

9. Were Clinton's Signing Statements Unconstitutional too?

All you have to do is google Wikipedia and you have loads of information on it.

We have important issues to work with, ones with teeth in them. This is a wild goose chase that will lead nowhere. Hey, I don't like them either, but they have no legal force behind them if the issue goes to court.

By the way, if you studied what our founding fathers intended we wouldn't have a Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's an argument I never use. If we progress, we can't be quoting slave owners.

[bonito]

11. Move along folks ,nothing to see here

RightB-)

[tbyg52]

13. *I* know they have no legal force,

*you* know they have no legal force. Probably *Bush* knows they have no legal force.

The problem is, he acts as if they do.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. Oh, how sweet to finally hear that justice is on it's way!

Signing statements are carte blanche for * to bend and ignore laws crafted and passed through the constitutional procedures of rule of law. * cannot usurp our laws. It is corruption in the highest form.
Along with the other abuses of this republican administration, this action must be stopped.

[aggiesal]

3. Is there anything in the Constitution about signing statments?

Of course not.
So how is this constitutional?

IIIII M     M PPPP  EEEEE   A    CCC  H   H  !!
  I   M M M M P   P E      A A  C   C H   H  !!
  I   M  M  M PPPP  EEE   A   A C     HHHHH  !!
  I   M     M P     E     AAAAA C     H   H  !!
  I   M     M P     E     A   A C   C H   H
IIIII M     M P     EEEEE A   A  CCC  H   H  1!

[UpInArms]

4. more than 750 signing statements as of April 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

Examples of the president's signing statements

April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

...more...

Specter saying there are only 147 examples is yet another obsfuscation of the problem.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

6. excellent post, thank you. n/t

[MissWaverly]

5. I really don't know how many signing statements he's done

there might have been 1 bill on Iraq and then he's has 11 different items attached to
it, does that count as 1 signing statement or 11? I know one thing there's a lot more
than 147, I waded through many of them, some weeks he has 3 for just that week. I
especially like signing statements like: Give me 20 million for DC to pay for security,
how can we have a balanced budget when this is an accepted practice.

[anitar1]

10. I read on here a couple of weeks ago that he had done

735 signing statements.

[Hekate]

7. John Conyers -- Hero Congressman. Finally, finally, finally.

:loveya:

Hekate

[Tellurian]

8. And don't forget...

all these signings were done under the premise of FRAUD!
After LYING to go to War is when the Constitutional shredding began!

Pats Act I+II and Military Tribunals and Wiretapping. ALL done under a fraudulent premise.
Conyers has to introduce a new Bill rolling back not only the signings but the extraordinary
Executive Power He's given himself because of it.

[rman]

12. to the mod who moved this: it's not an editorial

(nor an "other article")

It's in the "Nation/World" section of the Seattle Times.

If it's not fit for LBN, i'd say it's certainly of General interest.