ABA group on signing statements

[Pens1566]

Link

"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."

Doesn't look like the ABA likes it. Have they done this with previous presidents?

 

[zendari]

Please Include Your Own Input with Links and Articles.


Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow, a lame distraction from from Z -- the old "Everyone's doing it, so it's OK" excuse. Who woulda thunk it?

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.

As usual, Bush takes the behavior to new disgusting levels. Anything to consolidate executive power, eh Z?

 

[zendari]

That excuse isn't as old as the typical "hey lets ignore our guys and point fingers at the other team" routine that the leftwingers do.

You're like San Francisco Giants fans whining about Jason Giambi's steroids.

 

[Slick5150]

And before people start the "Liberal Lawyer Group" charge:

"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."

And yes, while Bush isn't the first to use signing statements, he is absolutely the first to use them in the manner in which he has done by carving out broad exemptions for himself and/or his people that clearly disregard the intent of the law, and as the ABA claims, the constitution.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: zendari
That excuse isn't as old as the typical "hey lets ignore our guys and point fingers at the other team" routine that the leftwingers do.

You're like San Francisco Giants fans whining about Jason Giambi's steroids.

So King George isn't taking this to a whole new level? Please provide proof. ABA denouncing Clinton for signing statements? Why don't you go off and find that. Get back to us when you have something. You should be gone for quite a while.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari
Please Include Your Own Input with Links and Articles.


Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

He is the first President to use the signing statement to subvert the democratic process.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

He is the first President to use the signing statement to subvert the democratic process.

Hardly. He is merely building on the foundation made by previous presidents and bringing it into the new century.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

He has apparently had 800 "signing statements" challenged, compared to a total of 600 by all other presidents combined. The practice originated in the Reagan admininstration, but like so many other things, President Bush has refined this black art and taken it to new, unprecedented extremes. It's amazing to me how often he lives up to his critics' most paranoid suspicions about him.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Here's a little gem:

Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents.

So in the entire history of our Country, Dubya has has exception with Constitutionallity
in less than 6 years
which was for him more problems than all those of all previous Administrations combined by 800 : 600.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

He is the first President to use the signing statement to subvert the democratic process.

Hardly. He is merely building on the foundation made by previous presidents and bringing it into the new century.

Yeah it happened all the time, like remember that one time with Clinton signed into effect a law and then in his signing statement declared that the law didnt apply to him?? what a riot!!!

:roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Yeah it happened all the time, like remember that one time with Clinton signed into effect a law and then in his signing statement declared that the law didnt apply to him?? what a riot!!!

:roll:

Don't waste your breath on Zendari. He's just trolling - I don't even think he believes his own BS.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush is a titanic disaster who needs to be impeached but the Mafia party to which he belongs won't do it.

Corporate wolves know how to eat Christian sheep.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

Bush is the most blatant abuser of the practice, and the combination of his blatant stupidity, insufferable arrogance and the wrongness of both his understanding of the law and his criminal userpation of power, he may finally get Congress and the courts off their lame asses to do something about reigning him in. It's yet another reason to fire the entire administration, NOW! :|

From the ABA report (source: San Jose Mercury News)

From the inception of the republic until 2000, presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush ... has produced more than 800.

A little historical perstpective:

Signing statements are not new-their use started with the fifth U.S. president, James Monroe (1817-1825)-but they were used sparingly and mostly for rhetorical purposes. Only 75 statements had been issued before Ronald Reagan became president in 1980. Reagan and his successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, made 247 signing statements between them. President George W. Bush has taken the practice to a new level, attracting criticism both for the number of statements he has issued as well as for his apparent attempts to nullify any legal restrictions on his actions

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: OrByte
Yeah it happened all the time, like remember that one time with Clinton signed into effect a law and then in his signing statement declared that the law didnt apply to him?? what a riot!!!

:roll:

Don't waste your breath on Zendari. He's just trolling - I don't even think he believes his own BS.

I think he is a closet democrat. Him and his kind do more for solidifying the democratic party than actual democrats. Not like it means anything though.

 

[CellarDoor]

I thought this was the most interesting part....

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.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

He is the first President to use the signing statement to subvert the democratic process.

Hardly. He is merely building on the foundation made by previous presidents and bringing it into the new century.[/q]

And that falls perfectly in line with one of your earlier posts? :laugh:

Originally posted by: zendari
Things were bad well before Bush came into office and since then have gotten better.

 

[conjur]

Torture-lover Gonzo testified to the Senate the other day that the Frat Boy Propagandist didn't have 700+ signing statements. Technically, he's correct, but the Propagandist's signing statements rejected or altered interpretation of over 700 laws. Gonzo also tried to insinuate that Clinton was doing the same thing yet Clinton's were reaffirmations of legislation, not rejections of them.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: zendari
That excuse isn't as old as the typical "hey lets ignore our guys and point fingers at the other team" routine that the leftwingers do.

You're like San Francisco Giants fans whining about Jason Giambi's steroids.

And yet you always seem to forget the Dems (who I'd hardly consider "my team") aren't doing it right now because they don't have a Democratic President in office. Duh. That point always seems to escape your grasp.

I don't know why that surprises me, it really shouldn't.

Bottom line here is Bush has taken this crap to all new heights. That escalation is worth looking at closely, in particular if he's subverting the division of powers, which I believe he and his administration have been systematically doing and clearly the ABA seems to as well.

Remember, we don't live under a monarchy, Z. There's a division of power between the branches for a damned good reason.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

He is the first President to use the signing statement to subvert the democratic process.

Hardly. He is merely building on the foundation made by previous presidents and bringing it into the new century.

Yeah it happened all the time, like remember that one time with Clinton signed into effect a law and then in his signing statement declared that the law didnt apply to him?? what a riot!!!

:roll:

He used signing statements more than his predecessors did, building on the practice, and taking it to new hights.

Text

Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional, or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create ?legislative history? remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes.

In accordance with these propositions, we do not believe that a President is limited to choosing between vetoing, for example, the Defense Appropriations Act and executing an unconstitutional provision in it. In our view, the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.

So said Clinton's assistant attorney general.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: zendari

Bush isn't the first president to use these statements and he won't be the last.

He is the first President to use the signing statement to subvert the democratic process.

Hardly. He is merely building on the foundation made by previous presidents and bringing it into the new century.

Yeah it happened all the time, like remember that one time with Clinton signed into effect a law and then in his signing statement declared that the law didnt apply to him?? what a riot!!!

:roll:

He used signing statements more than his predecessors did, building on the practice, and taking it to new hights.

Text

In accordance with these propositions, we do not believe that a President is limited to choosing between vetoing, for example, the Defense Appropriations Act and executing an unconstitutional provision in it. In our view, the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.

So said Clinton's assistant attorney general.

Thanks for reminding us that a President is supposed to PROTECT the Constitution.

After almost 6 years of using the Constitution as a roll of toliet paper, we tend to forget what it used to be like.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Thanks for reminding us that a President is supposed to PROTECT the Constitution.

After almost 6 years of using the Constitution as a roll of toliet paper, we tend to forget what it used to be like.

Precisely what the President is doing by upholding his duty to protect the homeland.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte

So said Clinton's assistant attorney general.

Thanks for reminding us that a President is supposed to PROTECT the Constitution.

After almost 6 years of using the Constitution as a roll of toliet paper, we tend to forget what it used to be like.

Precisely what the President is doing by upholding his duty to protect the homeland.
[/quote] A homeland governed by the Constitution. Which this President has seem to forgotten.

edit: but some of us haven't forgotten.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: OrByte
A homeland governed by the Constitution. Which this President has seem to forgotten.

edit: but some of us haven't forgotten.

The first signing statements were used back in the early 1800s. There's no forgetting anything; its been in use for most of our nations history.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: OrByte
A homeland governed by the Constitution. Which this President has seem to forgotten.

edit: but some of us haven't forgotten.

The first signing statements were used back in the early 1800s. There's no forgetting anything; its been in use for most of our nations history.

And for each of the preceding Presidents (meaning before Bush Jr.) the signing statement was generally used to protect our Constitution. As made evident by your link.

and you misread my previous statement, either that or you are ignoring my point, not surprising.