Quote :

" ABA: Bush violating Constitution Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice. The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws. The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. "This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries." Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii. ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them. The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said. Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate. "Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws." Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions." The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice. The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/lawyers.bush.ap/index.html

This activist executive branch is out of control!

[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2006 12:12:12 PM

Is this different from a line-item veto?

7/24/2006 12:41:57 PM

It sounds like it to me, but I have just raed the article he posted.

Line Vetos were unconstitutional because it took power away from the legislature (the bicameral voting and presentment) and edited the law.

Congress can delegate some powers to the president (example: Spend this line item if you want). This seems to fall more into that catergory. However, he could have overstepped the use allowments or boundaries in the sheer # of applications

7/24/2006 1:29:31 PM

True, it does sound suspect. I'm wondering if his extreme use of this is just a counter-balance to his extreme disuse of the veto though. Not saying its right, just saying it probably took the place of outright vetos.

7/24/2006 2:08:21 PM

signing statements really feel like an abuse of executive power

i don't think a court has ever had to determine whether or not they need to be respected

they need to be slapped the fuck down

[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2006 2:20:52 PM

There was a big article in the Boston Globe about them a while ago. I first heard about signing statements when the journalist was on NPR a while back.

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

Examples of signing statements:

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


PS: Here's the one he wrote for the anti-torture bill sponsored by McCain:

Quote :

"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."

The last link's a goldmine. This is the Imperial Presendency getting more imperialer.

[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 6:03 PM. Reason : PS]

7/24/2006 6:00:47 PM

wasn't this thread done like a month ago?

7/24/2006 10:07:10 PM

Quote :

"Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)"

7/24/2006 10:09:39 PM

that's great, but I read some thread about a month ago saying more or less the same thing. Just because CNN regurgitates it in a new form doesn't make it "new"

7/24/2006 10:16:34 PM

The ABA's press release:

Quote :

"BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2006 – Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force."

http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html

7/24/2006 10:24:35 PM

great. doesn't change the fact that I read about it almost a month ago. and it was someone other than the ABA bitching about it, yes

7/24/2006 10:26:52 PM

So they were talking about the ABA press release?

That wouldn't exist for another 30 days?

7/24/2006 10:33:03 PM

nope. it was just a similar group doin the bitchin

7/24/2006 10:34:23 PM

Quote :

"wasn't this thread done like a month ago?"

So what's this thread about, again?

7/24/2006 10:37:25 PM

someone bitchin about signing statements.

7/24/2006 10:38:23 PM

Who, specifically?

7/24/2006 10:45:34 PM

it was a month ago man, don't remember.

7/24/2006 10:46:05 PM

So then one could only conclude that I'm right and you're wrong, oui?

7/24/2006 10:56:19 PM

falsely, yes, someone could conclude that. but I still know I read it about a month ago, so...

7/24/2006 11:10:22 PM

You read about this ABA release,

which didn't exist at the time?

7/24/2006 11:11:18 PM

never said I read about the ABA release. said I read about some similar organization bitching about the signing statements. reading is fundamental

7/24/2006 11:12:33 PM

What's the first word/acronym in this thread?

7/24/2006 11:28:44 PM

quote

7/24/2006 11:30:26 PM

Ugh, this is getting lame...

The thread was specifically about the ABA denouncing signing statements.

This event occurred today.

It cannot be old.


[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2006 11:31:09 PM

hehe. still old, man.

7/24/2006 11:33:40 PM