[DRB]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287960,00.html

he top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is attempting to strike at the heart of presidential signing statements.

Legislation proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter — similar to the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006, which Specter also introduced — instructs courts to actually ignore a presidential statement when interpreting an Act of Congress.

"Presidential signing statements can render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced," Specter said. "This legislation reinforces the system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution."

"The bill seeks to protect the constitutional system of checks and balances by, first, preventing the President from issuing a signing statement that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing the courts not to rely on signing statements in interpreting an act; and second, granting Congress the power to participate in any case where the construction or constitutionality of an act of Congress is in question and a signing statement was issued when the act was signed."

“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.”

Oooh, I bet this is going to ruin a bunch of somebodies 4th.

 

[luelling]

Okay, big question....when the Pres issues a signing statement, does it affect the bill/law or is just supposed to be taken into account if it goes to the Supreme Court?

 

[Silver]

Signing statements, along with pardons, are something that may require a constitutional amendment.

I don't know where the momentum for that would come from in a two party system, however...

 

[luelling]

Signing statements, along with pardons, are something that may require a constitutional amendment.

I don't know where the momentum for that would come from in a two party system, however...

So the is the power of a statement the same as a pardon(can't be undone, goes as fact/law?) If so, can't he add statements to ANY bill?

 

[valve bouncer]

Thought this might be about Phil Specter (sic) and was momentarily excited. After all Phil does have experience with shooting people in the face.

 

[LordOpie]

So the is the power of a statement the same as a pardon(can't be undone, goes as fact/law?) If so, can't he add statements to ANY bill?

Good questions.

My limited knowledge of them makes them seem scary.

For one thing, I feel that the PotUS is my ex-wife who used to interpret what I said the wrong way, consistently.

 

[fluff]

my ex-wife who used to interpret what I said the wrong way, consistently.

A useful service, but one with which you could have dispensed had you simply said things the right way.

 

[Kihaji]

So the is the power of a statement the same as a pardon(can't be undone, goes as fact/law?) If so, can't he add statements to ANY bill?

The statements themselves have never really been tested in courts, and the Constitution has specifically laid out that the judicial branch is the one that has judicial review of laws.

Traditionally, and signing statements have been used for a long long time(James Monroe was the first), have been used by the President to:

A) Clarify language. These are laws afterall, and the President may have a different interpretation of what is trying to be said. It doesn't make that interpretation correct, merely that it is different.

B) Call into question the constitutionality of a law, and to warn implementing agencies of that potential.

C) Pose more questions about the law to "help" implementers.

The most important point in all 3 is Congress should be reading these statements and fixing the laws to help clear up the law.

 

[MMike]

This is good stuff

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/unpardonable.politics.ap/index.html

They're all crooks.....

 

[Silver]

The statements themselves have never really been tested in courts, and the Constitution has specifically laid out that the judicial branch is the one that has judicial review of laws.

Traditionally, and signing statements have been used for a long long time(James Monroe was the first), have been used by the President to:

A) Clarify language. These are laws afterall, and the President may have a different interpretation of what is trying to be said. It doesn't make that interpretation correct, merely that it is different.

B) Call into question the constitutionality of a law, and to warn implementing agencies of that potential.

C) Pose more questions about the law to "help" implementers.

The most important point in all 3 is Congress should be reading these statements and fixing the laws to help clear up the law.

No, the important point is that if the President doesn't like the law, he can pull out his veto pen and tell Congress to try again. (Unless it's veto proof...but that's not easy to do.)

Signing statements are a way for the President to increase his power and weasel out of doing his job.

 

[Alpha Kenny Body]