So let me get this straight.
1. In the prior 16 years, 275 of these statements were issued with the majority being rhetorical comments or affirmations OF the law (not against).
2. In the prior 200 years, 75 were written, most of the same type as above.
3. In the past 6 years, 800 have been written, most of them *CIRCUMVENTING* the laws and NOT rhetorical in nature.
4. The justification for their prolific use was introduced by a lawyer, who was nominated and confirmed to the highest court in this country by the same guy who is trying to circumvent the Constitution.
5. The statements, as Tony Snow describes them, allow the President to opine on the Constitutionality of the laws *THE PEOPLE* passed, which is the job of the US court system, NOT the executive branch.
6. The President takes an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, meanwhile, this guy is circumventing all due process and the will of the people.
7. Checks and balances are put in to place in order to prevent rampant abuse by any branch of the government, yet, all checks and balances are being eliminated.
I think the fact that people like Zendari miss is that the Constitution and it's iron-clad checks and balances are the ONLY thing that prevent us from being like every unstable and failed democracy there has been in history. It attempts to continue th practice of the Republic experiment, not ruled by a simple and tyrranical majority.
To circumvent all of those checks and balances in order to deal with a phony war, or to promote "security" only enables long-term abuses by the simple and tyrranical majority while abusing and ignoring the rights of the minority.
It is simply disgusting that we have allowed and continue to allow the destruction of our rights, whether they are immediately palatable or not, by a man and his cronies who have no desire to represent or protect the People, but only desire to circumvent and subjugate freedom while using the guise of security and pandering to foolish idiots.
In 250 years, whether or not this country has fallen or not, we will be able to say that these are the darkest times of Democracy in history.
I wonder if Zendari has ever visited the Jefferson, or FDR, or Lincoln memorials. Whether he has visited Mt. Vernon and seen the key to the bastille given to Washington "the father of freedom" by the Marquise, and thought that our freedom was less valuable than our will to fight for it.
1. In the prior 16 years, 275 of these statements were issued with the majority being rhetorical comments or affirmations OF the law (not against).
2. In the prior 200 years, 75 were written, most of the same type as above.
3. In the past 6 years, 800 have been written, most of them *CIRCUMVENTING* the laws and NOT rhetorical in nature.
4. The justification for their prolific use was introduced by a lawyer, who was nominated and confirmed to the highest court in this country by the same guy who is trying to circumvent the Constitution.
5. The statements, as Tony Snow describes them, allow the President to opine on the Constitutionality of the laws *THE PEOPLE* passed, which is the job of the US court system, NOT the executive branch.
6. The President takes an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, meanwhile, this guy is circumventing all due process and the will of the people.
7. Checks and balances are put in to place in order to prevent rampant abuse by any branch of the government, yet, all checks and balances are being eliminated.
I think the fact that people like Zendari miss is that the Constitution and it's iron-clad checks and balances are the ONLY thing that prevent us from being like every unstable and failed democracy there has been in history. It attempts to continue th practice of the Republic experiment, not ruled by a simple and tyrranical majority.
To circumvent all of those checks and balances in order to deal with a phony war, or to promote "security" only enables long-term abuses by the simple and tyrranical majority while abusing and ignoring the rights of the minority.
It is simply disgusting that we have allowed and continue to allow the destruction of our rights, whether they are immediately palatable or not, by a man and his cronies who have no desire to represent or protect the People, but only desire to circumvent and subjugate freedom while using the guise of security and pandering to foolish idiots.
In 250 years, whether or not this country has fallen or not, we will be able to say that these are the darkest times of Democracy in history.
I wonder if Zendari has ever visited the Jefferson, or FDR, or Lincoln memorials. Whether he has visited Mt. Vernon and seen the key to the bastille given to Washington "the father of freedom" by the Marquise, and thought that our freedom was less valuable than our will to fight for it.
why is the aba referred to as a group? it's THE group. It's the american bar association!
ANd there is a difference between a president not enforcing because he believes it unconsitutional and a president refusing to execute a law properly passed by congress because he doesn't feel like it! THe latter clearly violates the consitution! THe aba isn't a political group its an association of every goddamn lawyer in america. It is focusing entirely on the legality of this issue. FOr example when the ABA vets judicial nomineees, doesn't matter how conservative or liberal they base their recommendation on the propriety of the nominees behavior in according with ABA rules of conduct. You can't dismiss this criticism lightly.
ANd there is a difference between a president not enforcing because he believes it unconsitutional and a president refusing to execute a law properly passed by congress because he doesn't feel like it! THe latter clearly violates the consitution! THe aba isn't a political group its an association of every goddamn lawyer in america. It is focusing entirely on the legality of this issue. FOr example when the ABA vets judicial nomineees, doesn't matter how conservative or liberal they base their recommendation on the propriety of the nominees behavior in according with ABA rules of conduct. You can't dismiss this criticism lightly.
Most signing statements before GWB were more like executive direction on how the new laws would be carried out or implemented. Perfectly ordinary management practices. GWB has made an art out of using them to say he intends to do whatever the hell he wants, even if it means ignoring the law. I doubt that anyone can deny (with a straight face) that there is a distinct line of before and after GWB.
exactly its not the constitutionality of the signing statements that is in question but how bush uses them.
" i am free to ignore a duly executed law of congress" = utter violation of the foundations of our government. I hope congress grants jursidiction to the supremes to hear this so they can knock this crap out. It'd be a unanimous decision too.
" i am free to ignore a duly executed law of congress" = utter violation of the foundations of our government. I hope congress grants jursidiction to the supremes to hear this so they can knock this crap out. It'd be a unanimous decision too.
I just found this site: Summarizing presidential signing statements
Nearly every statement that I saw for the current president seems to modify the legislation.
Nearly every statement that I saw for president Clinton seems to describe why he thinks the legislation is important.
I didn't look at the G.H.W. Bush, but if he used signing statements more than Clinton, you also have to take into account that he did so in only 4 years.
Nearly every statement that I saw for the current president seems to modify the legislation.
Nearly every statement that I saw for president Clinton seems to describe why he thinks the legislation is important.
I didn't look at the G.H.W. Bush, but if he used signing statements more than Clinton, you also have to take into account that he did so in only 4 years.
So, he gets to pick one clause of the Constitution to uphold and shred the rest? What, did he use a signing statement on his oath of office?
It would seem he had a clear idea about Willy's administration and how Clinton did the same stuff.
zendari, did you miss all that stuff about how it is NOT the same stuff? I fail to see what your point is. If you are trying to say other presidents did the same thing, that's patently false. If you are trying to say the president is expanding on his signing statment powers and taking them to new heights, that's the problem 
You see, a little while ago the supreme court had to decide the legitimacy of th eline item veto and held it to be invalid. WHy? because the president was essentially taking legislative action in violation of the bicamerialism requirement in the constitution. That was despite the fact congress GRANTED THE POWER. the president's power is at its highest ebb when there is an express grant of the power by congress. court said the grant itself was invalid anyway.
here we have the president legislating not only in the absence of legislative power but STRICTLY AGAINST IT. that's an utter violation of the consitution.
Clear enough now?
my bar exam is tommorow i hope i get a con law question.
You see, a little while ago the supreme court had to decide the legitimacy of th eline item veto and held it to be invalid. WHy? because the president was essentially taking legislative action in violation of the bicamerialism requirement in the constitution. That was despite the fact congress GRANTED THE POWER. the president's power is at its highest ebb when there is an express grant of the power by congress. court said the grant itself was invalid anyway.
here we have the president legislating not only in the absence of legislative power but STRICTLY AGAINST IT. that's an utter violation of the consitution.
Clear enough now?
my bar exam is tommorow
i hope i get a con law question.It's truly a lost cause trying to discuss this with you. It's not the "same stuff" and it's not even close.
READ and COMPREHEND all of the posts in this very thread. People are making extremely good points and you're summarily ignoring them and babbling on about what some Clinton official said ten years ago. It's as if suddenly your years of Clinton bashing were erased as soon as you were able to find something one of them said that (sort of) supports your point.
No, it was mostly the same.
President Clinton in at least three separate instances asked the OLC to issue opinions either buttressing the president?s authority to decline to enforce provisions of a statute or to direct inferior officers on how to implement the terms of a constitutional signing statement, and in two additional cases, the OLC wrote highly expansive and detailed memorandum on the legal significance of the constitutionally-based signing statement.
I forgot about the line item veto. The Democrats were pushing for executive power 10 years ago now all of a sudden they've changed their minds! :laugh:
Your old Stalinist homeland, maybe, but not the United States. Since you like totalitarian dictatorships so much, why don't you just go back where you came from and leave American ideals to Americans who like our Constitution the way it was before the Bushwhackos started trying to dismantle and shred it.? :|
Yet again, zendari proves he is functionally illiterate, as well as unable to count. Another quote from my previous link to the San Jose Mercury News article:
OK, so we've gone from "the same" to "mostly the same." So riddle me this - Clinton had 3 instances vs. how many for W?
So um...has anyone gone through and read exactly what has been done with these signing statements?
Or are all the people who are b!tching about it simply read an article and since it *may* cast a poor light on the current president whom many dislike. you all just hop onboard and start spouting off without really understanding what the ABA is complaining about. I mean even the original article posted does not go into any type of detail about what they have a problem with.
Show of hands....is there anyone here or anyone that you know of or heard of had thier constitutional rights violated by any of these signing statements?...anyone?....anyone?
edit: This must be what the ABA is complaining about
That is total BS how dare he!!
Or are all the people who are b!tching about it simply read an article and since it *may* cast a poor light on the current president whom many dislike. you all just hop onboard and start spouting off without really understanding what the ABA is complaining about. I mean even the original article posted does not go into any type of detail about what they have a problem with.
Show of hands....is there anyone here or anyone that you know of or heard of had thier constitutional rights violated by any of these signing statements?...anyone?....anyone?
edit: This must be what the ABA is complaining about
That is total BS how dare he!!
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
alot of people have been complaining about this issue looong before this article came out.
so I think it is you who needs to do some reading. At least from my perspective.
Another thing, you obviously have no clue what the issue is or else you wouldn't be asking if we are having our "constitutional rights" violated. It is not a question of our Constitutional Rights being violated.
It is a question of The Executive Branch establishing powers beyond what our Constitution extends to said branch of government. It is a question of the balance of power in our government.
Do you not expect our Executive to execute and abide by the laws that our congress passes?
your right, he should not have the power to ammend laws that help curb the trafficking of people. that is total BS and of course there should be an investigation into this matter...I mean what the hell it's all gonna be on the back of the taxpayer any way.
according to here this is the purpose of signing statements
according to here this is the purpose of signing statements
I don't know, I never kept track. I never saw much importance in watching Bush duplicate the efforts of his predecessor as I figured (incorrectly) that nobody would have a problem after Clinton did his thing and they kept silent.
The president does NOT have the power to Ammend laws and he does not have the power to rule on thier constitutionality. Those are powers reserved to the legislature and the judiciary respectively.
Do you seriously not see a seperation of powers issue here?
That is not the issue as stated by the article poste by the OP
But it also states:
So in my earlier post ammend may not have been the correct word. What these signing statements do is effectively allow the president the ability to:
1- Use of signing statements to explain to the public, and more particularly to interested constituencies, what the President understands to be the likely effects of the bill, and how it coheres or fails to cohere with the Administration's views or programs.
2- Is to guide and direct Executive officials in interpreting or administering a statute. The President has the constitutional authority to supervise and control the activity of subordinate officials within the Executive Branch.
3-Is the use of signing statements to announce the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing.
Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it.
In each of the last three Administrations, the Department of Justice has advised the President that the Constitution provides him with the authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.(7) This advice is, we believe, consistent with the views of the Framers.(8) Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional."
So now we get people complaining that the president is actually looking out for our constitutional rights by using these signing statements. As I said earlier, the ABA is only bitching about his use of his constitutional right to do this, but they have not specified what exactly they have a problem with.
But it also states:
So in my earlier post ammend may not have been the correct word. What these signing statements do is effectively allow the president the ability to:
1- Use of signing statements to explain to the public, and more particularly to interested constituencies, what the President understands to be the likely effects of the bill, and how it coheres or fails to cohere with the Administration's views or programs.
2- Is to guide and direct Executive officials in interpreting or administering a statute. The President has the constitutional authority to supervise and control the activity of subordinate officials within the Executive Branch.
3-Is the use of signing statements to announce the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing.
Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it.
In each of the last three Administrations, the Department of Justice has advised the President that the Constitution provides him with the authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.(7) This advice is, we believe, consistent with the views of the Framers.(8) Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional."
So now we get people complaining that the president is actually looking out for our constitutional rights by using these signing statements. As I said earlier, the ABA is only bitching about his use of his constitutional right to do this, but they have not specified what exactly they have a problem with.
So Wheezer, you have one example that seems like a reasonable one on first glance. What about the other 799? :laugh:
I am not bitching about it, therefore it is not up to me to do the homework a few lazy people who want to sit at thier computers all day surfing the internet looking for reasons to diss the president.
if they can do that then they probably can actually look at what they are complaining about.Okay, here let me be more specific:
- Congressional ban on torture
- A request for data on the USA Patriot Act
- Whistle-blower protections
- Banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.
In each of those cases, he has issued signing statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Under the U.S. Constitution he has the right to either veto a particular piece of legislation or sign it. There is not a provision for the President to change, alter or selectively enforce the laws passed by Congress. There is no line-item veto.
The bottom line here, is the President is attempting to use signing statements to subvert the Constitutional separation of powers. It's a portion of the overall systematic effort to consolidate executive power.
You're simply not seeing the big picture. Which is obvious by your bringing up the one example, pointing at it and saying, "See it's all good."
Not a very effective or compelling argument.
- Congressional ban on torture
- A request for data on the USA Patriot Act
- Whistle-blower protections
- Banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.
In each of those cases, he has issued signing statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Under the U.S. Constitution he has the right to either veto a particular piece of legislation or sign it. There is not a provision for the President to change, alter or selectively enforce the laws passed by Congress. There is no line-item veto.
The bottom line here, is the President is attempting to use signing statements to subvert the Constitutional separation of powers. It's a portion of the overall systematic effort to consolidate executive power.
You're simply not seeing the big picture. Which is obvious by your bringing up the one example, pointing at it and saying, "See it's all good."
Not a very effective or compelling argument.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter