Bush Abuses Signing Statements

[snapcat]

From the SnapBlog ...


President Bush has now used the tactic of “signing statements” 750 times. (Source: Boston Globe) A relatively rare tactic called the signing statement provides the President with the ability to offer nuance or pushbacks on legislation he signs into law. This rare tactic had only been used just over a dozen times in the history of the country until the 1980’s. Ronald Reagon used the signing statement to challenge 71 legislative provisions. Clinton used the tactic 105 times. So far, George Bush has used the tactic around 750 times!

It’s no accident that this practice became more widespread in the 1980’s. And just who came up with using this obscure method of challenging legislation in the 1980’s. Why, none other than Samuel Alito.

In a February 1986 draft memo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito laid out a case for the President to routinely issue “statements” about the meaning of statutes which he signs into law. (Source: WaPo)

###
From WaPo:

Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."

###

No case illustrated just how pervasive the Bush administration has become with the usage of signing statements than the recent McCain Anti-Torture Bill signed into law. In signing the McCain Anti-Torture legislation into law, the President in effect said never mind or this doesn’t apply to me. Although the legislation was crystal clear in its meaning and intent, the president’s signing statement went on to read “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” Translation – If the President feels torture is warranted to protect the country he will violate the law and use torture. If the courts try to stop him he’ll ignore them too.

By using the tactic of a signing statement, Bush disallows Congress the opportunity to overturn a veto. In fact the last President to stay in office this long without issuing a veto was Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Bush is using the tactic of signing statements as if they were a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. (Source: FindLaw)

###

The Boston Globe gives us some examples of Bush’s signing statements and just how they changed the intended legislation.

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 [to Congress] 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.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

###

Hasn’t President Bush declared himself the sole judge of his own powers? Doesn’t this eliminate the checks and balances that keep our country a democracy? Isn’t this moving the country toward unlimited executive power?

 

[naked gent]

I think this is a very disturbing story. George Bush is saying I AM the law of the land. If I deem it necessary I can ignore both the congress and the courts. And this does not only apply to national security matters, included in the story are domestic examples such as forbidding accurate testimony before congress concerning the proposed nuclear repository in Nevada and how HIS view on affirmative-action trumps the views of both congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.

I wish Congress would just demonstrate its ultimate power, which is the power of the purse, and not give him any money.....that oughta teach him to whom the Founders vested the real power in.

 

[smelter]

Hasn’t President Bush declared himself the sole judge of his own powers? Doesn’t this eliminate the checks and balances that keep our country a democracy? Isn’t this moving the country toward unlimited executive power?

Yes! In effect he is saying that laws passed by Congress do not apply to him. He has all but declared himself the King of the United States. We fought a war of Independence to oust the last King George (George the III) who ruled here .... might be time we kick this King George (George the W) out also.

 

[Just_Believe18]

This one is my favorite:

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Oh, if only the Founding Fathers could have foreseen this..

 

[snapcat]

Update from Raw Story ...

...

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Report: GOP Senator seeks to limit presidential signing statements[/FONT]

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee quietly reintroduced a bill before Congress recessed last week aimed at reining in President Bush's ability to modify laws to his whims, Roll Call reports. Critics and watchdog agencies say Bush's use of signing statements allows him and federal agencies to ignore provisions of the law and Congress's intent.


Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter called President Bush's abuse of the signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." He introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper.


"The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," Roll Call reported Specter said on the floor of the Senate.


Specter's bill would prevent the president from issuing a signing statement that alters a statute's meaning by "instructing federal and state courts not to rely on presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute," Roll Call reported. His measure also would give Congress a heightened role in court cases involving an interpretation of law in an existing statement by allowing Congress to file briefs and present oral arguments in the cases.


The Government Accountability Office found in mid-June that in several cases the administration did not execute laws as Congress intended when Bush attached a signing statement to them.


“This is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances,” Specter said, according to Roll Call. “Any action by the president that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers.”

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

Thanks for the update. It is going to be interesting to see how this bill plays out in Congress. I wonder if the Republicans will block this too? I wish the issue of signing statements would go to the Supreme Court. I think, even with the conservative court, this will be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Andreus]

spectre may be one of the only republicans that is garnering my respect as of late

i think this relfects his frustration with bush as he is a member of the judiciary committee

 

[jackoroe]

I like the idea of having some documentation as to the Chief Executive's interpretation of a law. That can be helpful. For example, to interpret the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is useful to read the Federalist Papers. There, you can see what was on Madison's mind when he put his thoughts to paper.

But to have a signing statement say "black" when the law says "white" doesn't sit well with me at all. I don't know what the legislative remedy will bring. Do you simply ban signing statements outright? What is the legal effect of a signing statement, anyway? I think the courts are going to have to call this one.

 

[chance1]

spectre may be one of the only republicans that is garnering my respect as of late

i think this relfects his frustration with bush as he is a member of the judiciary committee

Arlen will be thrilled to know

is he a Republican?

come on Andreus

backhanded compliments of Republicans is so ........................

this is just a pile on thread

Bush this

Bush that

doesn't it ever get tiring

it's the same he sucks all the time

 

[chance1]

^ How about commenting on the issue?

the real issue is there are never enough issues for u

take a look at the list of threads on CE&P

take a look

then get back to me

enough already

you guys go round and round

different "topic"

but same bullshit

Bush blah blah blah

broken records don't make good music

 

[chance1]

^ How about commenting on the issue?

ur agenda sucks

Bush sucks is ur agenda

asked and answered

 

[Andreus]

perhaps fixing the mess bush created is the agenda

ever think of that?

 

[chance1]

perhaps fixing the mess bush created is the agenda

ever think of that?

I'd embrace that

doesn't appear to be what the newly elected congress and senate is doing

doesn't appear to me or to the people who give them approval ratings lower than the Pres

 

[snapcat]

this is just a pile on thread

Bush this

Bush that

doesn't it ever get tiring

it's the same he sucks all the time

Chance, considering the time that I spent researching the issue, and following up on the issue for the better part of a year, I find your comment both short-sighted and offensive.

If you would care to make any comment on the issue, be my guest.

But if your goal is to distract, divert, and dodge the issue, please select one of the other threads to post in.

 

[smelter]

this is just a pile on thread
Bush this
Bush that
doesn't it ever get tiring
it's the same he sucks all the time

Chance, maybe you don't understand the gravity of his signing statement abuse. The job of the Legislative branch is to make the laws, its his job to enforce them. If Bush disagrees with the new legislation, he should veto it, not cavalierly change or reinterpret it!

You're right .... it does get tiring! But if and until Bush stops abusing and redefining his role as President, we must never quit holding him accountable. Disagreeing with a rogue President is our patriotic duty as citizens of this fragile democracy.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Chance, unlike other politicians whose opposition usually begins with whispers and grows into screams of outrage, Dubyas' presidency began with outrage over the legality of his election.
He morphed from Yale to y'all and has consistently offended the country and the world.
These signing statements and many other actions clearly indicate that he's going to push through his personal agenda regardless of Constitutional legality or the desires and well being of the majority of Americans.
As we become angrier with each excess he takes or which law he distorts, get used to the growing clamor of the dissatisfied American.
Especially today, on the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we should take time to remember that we Americans will not tolerate any tyrant (domestic or foreign) taking advantage of us.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

The job of the Legislative branch is to make the laws, its his job to enforce them. If Bush disagrees with the new legislation, he should veto it, not cavalierly change or reinterpret it!

smelter44, you are correct.

And it is the court's job to interpret the law, when there is a question, or the law wrongfully used, or broken.

What law, or section of the Constitution, do the Presidents base signing statements? They had to have something, that gave them the legal basis, to begin doing signing statements.

Specter said, according to Roll Call.

If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

After posting above, I googled "basis of signing statements". Here is the link to a complicated and long article, but very interesting.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Here is a paragraph, from the above article, that I agree.

According to Louis Fisher of the Congressional Research Service,​

Andrew Jackson sparked a controversy in 1830 when he signed a bill and simultaneously sent to Congress a message that restricted the reach of the statute. The House, which had recessed, was powerless to act on the message. A House report later interpreted his action as constituting, in effect, an item veto of one of the bill's provisions. President Tyler continued the custom by advising the House in 1842 that after signing a bill, he had deposited with the Secretary of State "an exposition of my reasons for giving it my sanction." He expressed misgivings about the constitutionality and policy of the entire act. A select committee of the House issued a spirited protest, claiming that the Constitution gave the President only three options upon receiving a bill: a signature, a veto, or a pocket veto. To sign a bill and add extraneous matter in a separate document could be regarded "in no other light than a defacement of the public records and archives."​

​

 

[chance1]

Snap - no disrespect intended

I read it

And frankly I'm tired of all the legalese that goes back and forth

They should blow up all of Washington and start over

I have little faith in most all of them - whether they be Repubs or Dems - whether they are in the Senate or the House or in the White House

I find most of the front page of the NY Times to be boring - with issues like this raised instead of:

SOLUTIONS for Iraq - not "this is Bush's war"

Real Health Care convos - not universal health care for all - to be abused

Securing our border and not allowing illegals to stay mocking our laws

Educational plans that involve longer school days and increased focus on preparing students for real life

In short - real problems - there are many more

Never really hear about that

Just this bullshit

 

[chance1]

You won't find these discussions in this thread because this thread's topic is on an issue on which you refuse to comment.

I won't say this is bullshit, since signing statements really seem to be affront to the checks and balances on our government and is a real problem. I will say that there are other problems, many more, that can easily be discussed in this forum if you take the time to start a thread on them. Pop on the "on-topic" header and get the discussion going in a way that you want with the OP and you can see what happens. Perhaps if I would end my boycott of the header my thread on the Philosophy of Liberty wouldn't be hijacked by those consumed with hate and overflowing with red herrings who have a penchant for what you've done in this thread.

Happy Fourth!

Happy 4th to u too

raining like a MOFO here in NY