Hurray for the GOP!!

[Parrott_head]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060725/D8J2QHK80.htmlnull

Ok, let's get this understood. Our president has created more "signing statements" then all the previous presidents combined, according to AP via the ABA.

Basically what it means is that after both the House and the Senate have passed legislation the President puts a disclaimer on the document that tells how the bill is to be interpreted.

The bureaucracies that then have to inforce this legislation look to the "signing statements" for guidance.

What has happened is that a president that has vetoed only one bill, on stem cell research, has gutted legislation passed by both houses of which his party is in control of.

What are your thougths on this?

The arguement put forth by the American Bar Association is that by doing this the President had sidestepped his responsiblilty by not taking one of three actions outlined by the constitution. By the Constitution the President can veto a bill,sign a bill into law, or take no action (pocket veto).

Don't turn this into a flame war. Try to give critical thinking a chance to work. Remember, our grandkids are going to be inheriting this legacy.
How will future presidents take this into consideration?

Does this set a "past practice" that we should encourage?

 

[JB]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

If Bills sent to the President are so worded that his opinion on the bill, stated in a "signing statement", changes the intent or enactment of the Bill Congress has no recourse but to pass a Bill that says what they meant in the first place..

There are enough lawyers in Congress to construct a Bill that is not ambiguous. Their problem is that they have to make parts of new laws vague in order to get votes from those who would oppose a direct, specific law.

It is The President's job to specify how he understands a law and why he has signed it. It is SCOTUS' job to decide whether the law and its enactment is Constitutional.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

What JB said. Besides which, by giving direction to those beaurocracies, the president is doing exactly what we pay him to do. Any beaurocracy that doesn't ultimately report to the Executive Branch will just ignore him anyway.

 

[CalicoKid]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

HA, the signing statement is basically a line item veto or executive legislation. But as long as our devine savior W does it is is A-OK. We don't need more than one branch of govt anyway we're at war!

 

[txswinner]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

As usual W has simply ignored the Constitution, it does it constantly but many seem to remain blind to it.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

They hate,sure. But is the hate properly directed? After all, it took a whole "house" full of morons to make these idiotic pieces of paser, adding layer-upon-layer of more papers stapled to the original. What goes in, comes out much fatter and convoluted. I wish he had time to entertain that group of clowns with even more "signing statEments".

 

[1959_FDR]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

G.O.P = Government of Petroleum

LOL

 

[Speedwagon]

Re: Hurray for the GOP!!

If Bush has been doing this for the last 5 years, and Congress doesn't like it, shouldn't they change the way they write the damn law? The problem isn't the President(as this seems to be a power he is entitled to), it's Congress. If they can't get their act together, and work together, they are a bunch of morons. Nothing new there I suppose.

I see no problem with the President using the powers he is entitled too. Ultimately, it's the courts that determine how the law is interpreted, with or without a signing statement.