Presidential Signing Statement

[SassyLady]

Am I being paranoid? Can someone else (fj, log, kath, acorn, rev, anyone?) read this and tell me it isn't a blatant move to set up complete Executive Branch control of the government? Especially the portion in red ... seems that he tacked something onto the Tax Bill that allows him to have more control over the START Treaty. Thanks!


Obama Promised Not to Use Signing Statements, but Released One Last Night

In 2008, Barack Obama promised that he would not use signing statements, but last night he released one to accompany his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
He said that signing statements are a presidential power grab, and made clear he believed it violated the Constitution.
Overnight, however, Obama released this signing statement, in an attempt to try to change the meaning of the defense bill Congress sent to him for his signature:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 2, 2013
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013." I have
approved this annual defense authorization legislation, as
I have in previous years, because it authorizes essential
support for service members and their families, renews vital
national security programs, and helps ensure that the
United States will continue to have the strongest military
in the world.
Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions
contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of
sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree
with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the President
the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by
one. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as
a whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certain
sections of the Act, the need to renew critical defense
authorities and funding was too great to ignore.
In a time when all public servants recognize the need to
eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending, various sections in
the Act limit the Defense Department's ability to direct scarce
resources towards the highest priorities for our national
security. For example, restrictions on the Defense Department's
ability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarce
resources needed for readiness and result in future unfunded
liabilities. Additionally, the Department has endeavored to
constrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost sharing
reforms in its health care programs. By failing to allow
some of these cost savings measures, the Congress may force
reductions in the overall size of our military forces.
Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,
as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of
conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of
Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not
permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good
order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of
conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to
continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian
service members; Section 533 will not alter that.
Several provisions in the bill also raise constitutional
concerns. Section 1025 places limits on the military's
authority to transfer third country nationals currently held at
the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. That facility is
located within the territory of a foreign sovereign in the midst
of an armed conflict. Decisions regarding the disposition of
detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally
been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders
and national security professionals without unwarranted
interference by Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens to
upend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability as
Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about
the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of
hostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section could
violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

...........

As my Administration previously informed the Congress,
certain provisions in this bill, including sections 1225, 913,
1531, and 3122, could interfere with my constitutional authority
to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. In these
instances, my Administration will interpret and implement these
provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my
constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy. Section 1035,
which adds a new section 495(c) to title 10, is deeply
problematic, as it would impede the fulfillment of future U.S.
obligations agreed to in the New START Treaty, which the Senate
provided its advice and consent to in 2010, and hinder the
Executive's ability to determine an appropriate nuclear force
structure. I am therefore pleased that the Congress has
included a provision to adequately amend this provision in
H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which I will
be signing into law today.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-promised-not-use-signing-statements-released-one-last-night_693582.html?page=2

[Kathianne]

Am I being paranoid? Can someone else (fj, log, kath, acorn, rev, anyone?) read this and tell me it isn't a blatant move to set up complete Executive Branch control of the government? Especially the portion in red ... seems that he tacked something onto the Tax Bill that allows him to have more control over the START Treaty. Thanks!

If you remember Bully Pulpit going nuts over 'signing statements' on old site and here, that was his issue? Obama said in 2008, signing statements were a power grab by the executive. Now here he is, doing just what he promised he wouldn't.

The reasoning goes back to basics:

Legislature: Makes the laws
Judicial: Interprets the laws
Executive: Executes (carries out) the laws

What the 'signing statement' does is give notice to which sections the executive disagrees with in a bill he's signing. Is in effect saying that as far as constitutionally allowed, will not execute these sections of the bill he signed.


http://youtu.be/tEPd98CbbMk

[SassyLady]

Yep, understand the purpose of a Signing Statement ... just wanted another view on why he did this one and why it was attached to the Defense spending bill and made reference to an amendment that was attached to the fiscal cliff/tax bill. That is where my confusion is.

[Kathianne]

Yep, understand the purpose of a Signing Statement ... just wanted another view on why he did this one and why it was attached to the Defense spending bill and made reference to an amendment that was attached to the fiscal cliff/tax bill. That is where my confusion is.

I will not pretend to understand the convolutions of Obama and/or his puppet masters. I do fear them though. Like none other in my 57 years. When he says, "Our focus is on immigration reform and gun control," I believe him. He's got the fire back as for health care 'reform', never thought they'd push that through and they did. Believe what he says. Fight.

[SassyLady]

And they have this uncanny propensity for submitting the language of the law just minutes before signing it. This bill they just signed ... 150+ pages ... received it 3 minutes before voting for it. Who really read it to verify what was actually in it?

[fj1200]

Am I being paranoid? Can someone else (fj, log, kath, acorn, rev, anyone?) read this and tell me it isn't a blatant move to set up complete Executive Branch control of the government? Especially the portion in red ... seems that he tacked something onto the Tax Bill that allows him to have more control over the START Treaty. Thanks!

Meh, as far as I can tell the Senate approved START, in his view the NDAA impeded fulfillment of START, and the ATRA fixed his problems with the NDAA allowing fulfillment of START. "He" didn't tack anything on that wasn't approved by Congress.

As far as the Executive having too much control over the government, Congress has been delegating control for a couple of centuries now and this doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And they have this uncanny propensity for submitting the language of the law just minutes before signing it. This bill they just signed ... 150+ pages ... received it 3 minutes before voting for it. Who really read it to verify what was actually in it?

That's not supposed to happen until after it is signed, according to Nancy Pelosi.

[Kathianne]

Meh, as far as I can tell the Senate approved START, in his view the NDAA impeded fulfillment of START, and the ATRA fixed his problems with the NDAA allowing fulfillment of START. "He" didn't tack anything on that wasn't approved by Congress.

As far as the Executive having too much control over the government, Congress has been delegating control for a couple of centuries now and this doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.

The fact that Congress acquiesces power, doesn't make it in our interests. Indeed. Our system wasn't set up to be a dictatorship, nor should it be allowed by the people, to cycle down to one.

[fj1200]

The fact that Congress acquiesces power, doesn't make it in our interests. Indeed. Our system wasn't set up to be a dictatorship, nor should it be allowed by the people, to cycle down to one.

Of course not but here we are and it didn't start four years ago.

[Kathianne]

Of course not but here we are and it didn't start four years ago.

My concerns about government didn't begin then either.

[SassyLady]

Meh, as far as I can tell the Senate approved START, in his view the NDAA impeded fulfillment of START, and the ATRA fixed his problems with the NDAA allowing fulfillment of START. "He" didn't tack anything on that wasn't approved by Congress.

As far as the Executive having too much control over the government, Congress has been delegating control for a couple of centuries now and this doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.

Isn't a signing statement the President's way of passing most of the bill into law and using the statement to undermine the rule of that law in the direction that he sees fit?

I just never paid attention to this "tool" of the Executive Branch before Obama said specifically that he would never use one. Now, he seems to feel the need to use them. I thought the president could either ignore the bill, sign it, or veto it.....didn't realize that the president could use a tactic like a signing statement to circumvent the intent of the bill.

I don't understand what you mean by "approval of Congress". The bill was submitted and the statement is his way of disagreeing with what they approved, right?

[fj1200]

Isn't a signing statement the President's way of passing most of the bill into law and using the statement to undermine the rule of that law in the direction that he sees fit?

I just never paid attention to this "tool" of the Executive Branch before Obama said specifically that he would never use one. Now, he seems to feel the need to use them. I thought the president could either ignore the bill, sign it, or veto it.....didn't realize that the president could use a tactic like a signing statement to circumvent the intent of the bill.

I don't understand what you mean by "approval of Congress". The bill was submitted and the statement is his way of disagreeing with what they approved, right?

I suppose you could see a signing statement that way but it is not uncommon for them to be used so to pay attention to them now ignores its history. And the Congress always has the opportunity to fix whatever was wrong; that they don't is the fault of Congress. I kind of compare a Signing Statement with an Executive Order where the Executive has the ability to decide how to implement a given law. So I don't see it as an undermining the rule of law more of flexibility in how/when to implement the rule of law.

I meant "approval of Congress" by them fixing in the ATRA what he felt was wrong with the NDAA.

[Kathianne]

Isn't a signing statement the President's way of passing most of the bill into law and using the statement to undermine the rule of that law in the direction that he sees fit?

I just never paid attention to this "tool" of the Executive Branch before Obama said specifically that he would never use one. Now, he seems to feel the need to use them. I thought the president could either ignore the bill, sign it, or veto it.....didn't realize that the president could use a tactic like a signing statement to circumvent the intent of the bill.

I don't understand what you mean by "approval of Congress". The bill was submitted and the statement is his way of disagreeing with what they approved, right?

What I believe is the 'power' is the executives responsibility to 'carry out' the will of the legislation, (legislature). He's giving notice that the named sections, he disagrees with. He will only order execution of issues regarding those sections that he must, by the constitution. In other words, he will not necessarily comply, when not required.

To my way of thinking it brings to mind the differences Andrew Jackson had with John Marshall, regarding Native Americans right to be protected from unconstitutional actions by the government. After the ruling, Jackson supposedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

[revelarts]

Isn't a signing statement the President's way of passing most of the bill into law and using the statement to undermine the rule of that law in the direction that he sees fit?

I just never paid attention to this "tool" of the Executive Branch before Obama said specifically that he would never use one. Now, he seems to feel the need to use them. I thought the president could either ignore the bill, sign it, or veto it.....didn't realize that the president could use a tactic like a signing statement to circumvent the intent of the bill.

I don't understand what you mean by "approval of Congress". The bill was submitted and the statement is his way of disagreeing with what they approved, right?


I suppose you could see a signing statement that way but it is not uncommon for them to be used so to pay attention to them now ignores its history. And the Congress always has the opportunity to fix whatever was wrong; that they don't is the fault of Congress. I kind of compare a Signing Statement with an Executive Order where the Executive has the ability to decide how to implement a given law. So I don't see it as an undermining the rule of law more of flexibility in how/when to implement the rule of law.

I meant "approval of Congress" by them fixing in the ATRA what he felt was wrong with the NDAA.


FJ has a point, But the crucial difference in Executive orders and signing statements is that in the 1st the Executive is in fact making up new law. extra laws. In some cases it's an add on to existing legislation in some cases it brand new stuff out of the blue.
I'm no fan of those either.
But Signing statements are indeed saying I don't like this part of the new law and I'm not going to implement it.

As Kathianne's Jackson quote points out.

The signing statement is becoming the tool presidents use instead of the -Line Item Veto- and it is a usurpation of power from the legislative to the executive.
The line item veto was found unconstitutional by the supreme court during the Clinton Admin.
so Now all the presidents say 'well this is just a signing statement.' but in fact it's a term limited line item veto. It's unconstitutional.

The supreme court said the line Item veto violated the presentment clause , , where the constitution outline clearly How ALL laws are to be handled. the president doesn't have a say at signing. either sign it or don't .period . end of story.

[fj1200]

FJ has a point, But the crucial difference in Executive orders and signing statements is that in the 1st the Executive is in fact making up new law. extra laws. In some cases it's an add on to existing legislation in some cases it brand new stuff out of the blue.

I don't think that's true. I think every EO is couched in authority the Executive already has and references back to said laws or Constitutional authority. Could be wrong though.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's not supposed to happen until after it is signed, according to Nancy Pelosi.

That's how a royal decree is handled. It is issued , then the peasants read or are told what it contains and they must simply obey. That's how its worked eve since obama was crowned, now after a second crowning just watch what further goodies will come our way. This reading after passing is normally called rubber stamping, what the citizens need to know is just who is actually creating the bills and why that person or group gets to send forth decrees that are only known publicly after they are signed into law. Also why do we need legislatures if they rubber stamp this mystery person or group's decrees. With obama admin everything is done at the last minute after a media blitz of how much of a grave crisis it will solve and why it MUST BE PASSED without those voting on it even reading it!!!
Nothing about this method is Constitutional, its a total usurping of our political system!!!!
Yet it has become a new standard and that is because its how obama admin , dem party and the media have engineered it to be!--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

THIS MAY HELP..--Tyr

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/09/obamas-latest-executive-order-something-else-thats-unconstitutional/

To some, there may be nothing wrong with this, on the surface. The justification for such actions—which are seemingly abstract—are to inform the public. “Such informing would be only when necessary,” thinks the person faithful in the government. Or would it?
In regards to the executive order, there are several reasons for its being both unconstitutional and wrong. Before these are shown, it is necessary to understand what the contents of the executive order mean.
While the orders may be, as previously noted, abstract, they equate to a single measure—further government control of television, radio, and very likely the internet. All of the control would be justified in the name of the Federal government’s “need” to communicate with, interpreting from the order, everyone in the world, using all means possible, and at any moment.
At the most fundamental level, this is not what an executive order should be used for. In fact, the Constitution does not explicitly give provisions for executive orders, in the sense of a direct mention. But, presidents have used Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_1:_Executive_Power) of the Constitution to justify their use of executive orders, arguing the logic that it is the duty of the president to follow their presidential duty.
But what is the president’s duty, according to the Constitution? Contrary to what some may think, it is not his duty to rob and disarm the populace, silence opposition, abuse private property, and generally behave in a manner that would leave Gaddafi in silent admiration. Rather, the duty of the president is stated in the oath he must take “… I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_Stat es)”
Since it has been established that ensuring the Federal government follows the Constitution—apart from his own actions being in line with the Constitution—then one must question if President Obama’s executive order is concurrent with the Constitution. From what was established, in the way of the order’s true nature, it certainly is not. The Constitution denotes the explicit purpose of the government as to protect the citizens’ rights (i.e. natural rights), protect the nation from foreign enemies, and guard the borders. There is no provision for control of property or mediums of communication.
In another sense, there is a philosophical problem with the executive order. When one reads the order, one does not find any acknowledgement of the concept of private property. Yet it is not surprising, when the same Federal government requires broadcasters to attain licenses from the Federal Communications Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission). In other words, it is already assumed that the government “owns” the airwaves. And where does this justification come from? Obviously, not from the Constitution. Therefore, it is evident that, going from the reasoning used, the Federal government may declare anything else their property. The doctrine of natural rights (from the philosophy of John Locke) written into the Constitution specifically views property as an irrevocable, God-given right. Not only is this right invoked, but one may also argue—and very justly—that President Obama’s executive order violates freedom of speech.
There is a final argument against this executive order, though I find it to somewhat missing the true subject. That being said, it does provide a semi-valid argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, when a president takes an existing Executive order and so alters it as to make it nothing like it originally was , it does not give him cover then to place responsibility for his power grabbing changes on the president that was the original author. Obama has done this and has used this to help cover his true agenda IMHO. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Nothing about this method is Constitutional, its a total usurping of our political system!!!!

I'm pretty sure it would have been challenged by now, besides I think its usage would have been challenged in the past thirty years.

[Little-Acorn]

Booosh used to do that, too.

"Signing statements" by the President, have no impact at all. He may as well be writing "Merry Christmas", or a shopping list.

A President can write anything he wants while signing a bill (that was passed by Congress) into law. It won't make any difference. What he writes has no force of law at all. Only the stuff passed by Congress, that he signs, matters.

The Prez can even write that he isn't going to obey the law he just signed, or isn't going to implement part of it, or etc. etc. Again, it won't make any difference - he can write anything he wants.

If he actually doesn't implement a law he signed, then he is simply not doing his job ("The President shall take care that the laws of the United States are duly enforced..."). Though deplorable, that happens fairly frequently. I'd like to see a President impeached and booted out because of that, but there haven't many impeachments, so I guess I'm out of luck.

But a "signing statement" that announces in advance, that he's not going to implement a duly-signed law, is just so much hot air. It means nothing, and it IS nothing.

[revelarts]

I'm pretty sure it would have been challenged by now, besides I think its usage would have been challenged in the past thirty years.



I just looked it up.

it looks like the executive order has been around since George Washington, And it's been controversial and questionable as constitutional since then as well.
And like the rest of presidential powers has expanding in scope since it's 1st use.

there ought to be a law.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm pretty sure it would have been challenged by now, besides I think its usage would have been challenged in the past thirty years.

Only now has its use been so greatly and outrageously expanded and done so to protect the president from investigation as in the fast furious case , possibly in the recent embassy attack in Libya. In the fast /furious gun smuggling case obama extented an E.O. to a cabinet position in order to protect himself.
We the people are being used, abused, lied to and grossly mistreated by obama. The fact that A CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED IN THE PAST is no proof of innocence during that period. -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Isn't a signing statement the President's way of passing most of the bill into law and using the statement to undermine the rule of that law in the direction that he sees fit?

I just never paid attention to this "tool" of the Executive Branch before Obama said specifically that he would never use one. Now, he seems to feel the need to use them. I thought the president could either ignore the bill, sign it, or veto it.....didn't realize that the president could use a tactic like a signing statement to circumvent the intent of the bill.

I don't understand what you mean by "approval of Congress". The bill was submitted and the statement is his way of disagreeing with what they approved, right?

Back when GW Bush added such statements, his said he would do all that he could that was constitutional. The wording was a bit longer than this by me, but his intent was to follow the constitution.

I don't see this as Obama trying to follow the constitution.

But this is not the first nor last lie that Obama has been party to.

Obama can't simply veto part of any law. I may be wrong, but I see your point and agree you have a very good point.

[fj1200]

I just looked it up.

it looks like the executive order has been around since George Washington, And it's been controversial and questionable as constitutional since then as well.
And like the rest of presidential powers has expanding in scope since it's 1st use.

there ought to be a law.

There oughtta... but Congress has been complicit for almost as long.


Only now has its use been so greatly and outrageously expanded and done so to protect the president from investigation as in the fast furious case , possibly in the recent embassy attack in Libya. In the fast /furious gun smuggling case obama extented an E.O. to a cabinet position in order to protect himself.
We the people are being used, abused, lied to and grossly mistreated by obama. The fact that A CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED IN THE PAST is no proof of innocence during that period. -Tyr

What are you even talking about.




BTW, I think L-A summed it up pretty well.

[SassyLady]

Booosh used to do that, too.

"Signing statements" by the President, have no impact at all. He may as well be writing "Merry Christmas", or a shopping list.

A President can write anything he wants while signing a bill (that was passed by Congress) into law. It won't make any difference. What he writes has no force of law at all. Only the stuff passed by Congress, that he signs, matters.

The Prez can even write that he isn't going to obey the law he just signed, or isn't going to implement part of it, or etc. etc. Again, it won't make any difference - he can write anything he wants.

If he actually doesn't implement a law he signed, then he is simply not doing his job ("The President shall take care that the laws of the United States are duly enforced..."). Though deplorable, that happens fairly frequently. I'd like to see a President impeached and booted out because of that, but there haven't many impeachments, so I guess I'm out of luck.

But a "signing statement" that announces in advance, that he's not going to implement a duly-signed law, is just so much hot air. It means nothing, and it IS nothing.

Then, what is the point?

[fj1200]

^

A study released by then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Dellinger) (1993–1996) grouped signing statements into three categories:[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#cite_note-Dellinger-3)

Constitutional: asserts that the law is constitutionally defective in order to guide executive agencies in limiting its implementation;
Political: defines vague terms in the law to guide executive agencies in its implementation as written;
Rhetorical: uses the signing of the bill to mobilize political constituencies.

In recent usage, the phrase "signing statement" has referred mostly to statements relating to constitutional matters that direct executive agencies to apply the law according to the president's interpretation of the Constitution.
The "non-signing statement" is a related method that some presidents have used to express concerns about certain provisions in a bill without vetoing it.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#cite_note-4) With the non-signing statement, presidents announce their reasons for declining to sign, while allowing the bill to become law unsigned. The U.S. Constitution allows such enactments by default: if the President does not sign the bill, it becomes law after ten days "unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return..."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#cite_note-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

SL, I think the example in the OP would fall under the first type above except that it was a message to the Congress about potential deficiencies.

[Kathianne]

Seems there may be more import than some think:

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

[SassyLady]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

SL, I think the example in the OP would fall under the first type above except that it was a message to the Congress about potential deficiencies.

Valid deficiencies or just deficiencies from what the President wants? The way bills are being passed and signed (with no time to read the bill) these days, how can the President know about any deficiencies.....unless, of course, his administration actually wrote the bills.

[Little-Acorn]

Then, what is the point?

Trying to fool people into thinking that Prez has the authority to not uphold certain laws.

Liberals (in both parties) will try everything possible, to break the nation's laws and get away with it without being punished.

[fj1200]

Trying to fool people into thinking that Prez has the authority to not uphold certain laws.

Liberals (in both parties) will try everything possible, to break the nation's laws and get away with it without being punished.

Not necessarily.


Seems there may be more import than some think:

To begin with, it appears to be an uncontroversial 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.(3) (http://www.justice.gov/olc/signing.htm#N_3_) A second, and also generally uncontroversial, function of Presidential signing statements 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. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 112 S. Ct. 2767, 2775 (1992). In the exercise of that authority he may direct such officials how to interpret and apply the statutes they administer.(4) (http://www.justice.gov/olc/signing.htm#N_4_) Cf. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 733 (1986) ("[i]nterpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of 'execution' of the law."). Signing statements have frequently expressed the President's intention to construe or administer a statute in a particular manner (often to save the statute from unconstitutionality), and such statements have the effect of binding the statutory interpretation of other Executive Branch officials.(5) (http://www.justice.gov/olc/signing.htm#N_5_)
A third function, more controversial than either of the two considered above, is the use of signing statements to announce the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing. This category embraces at least three species: statements that declare that the legislation (or relevant provisions) would be unconstitutional in certain applications; statements that purport to construe the legislation in a manner that would "save" it from unconstitutionality; and statements that state flatly that the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. Each of these species of statement may include a declaration as to how -- or whether -- the legislation will be enforced.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/signing.htm

A conservative president could easily employ a signing statement in the second case and possibly the third although an outright veto would be preferred there.

[Kathianne]

Not necessarily.



A conservative president could easily employ a signing statement in the second case and possibly the third although an outright veto would be preferred there.

It seems to me that if a president is going to discourage the various agencies of the executive branch to do as little as possible regarding enforcement of sections of a given law, brought into focus by signing statement, the veto should have been used.

[fj1200]

It seems to me that if a president is going to discourage the various agencies of the executive branch to do as little as possible regarding enforcement of sections of a given law, brought into focus by signing statement, the veto should have been used.

Possibly but I can imagine that there is the possibility that the law is generally favorable and positive but for questionable actions by Congress which they would of course be loathe to fix upon a veto. I'm sure there's been some bit of study on that.

[Kathianne]

Possibly but I can imagine that there is the possibility that the law is generally favorable and positive but for questionable actions by Congress which they would of course be loathe to fix upon a veto. I'm sure there's been some bit of study on that.

Certainly has been, the 'line item veto,' but hasn't passed yet where SCOTUS will OK.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm


Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto
By Helen Dewar and Joan Biskupic
<!--plsfield:credit--> Washington Post Staff Writers
<!--plsfield:disp_date--> Friday, June 26, 1998; Page A01

<!--plsfield:description--> The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the broad new line-item veto authority that Congress had given the president to cancel specific items in spending and tax bills.


Within a couple of hours of the ruling, the law's backers announced they will try again to find a constitutional way to expand the president's powers to cut pork-barrel expenditures.


In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.

...

[fj1200]

^It's not quite the same. Your link has shown where it's been upheld or did I misread?

[Kathianne]

^It's not quite the same. Your link has shown where it's been upheld or did I misread?

A line item veto, would accomplish what signing statements are about-Congress could decide then whether to allow the bill forward, without the vetoed items or overturn the veto or scrap the legislation altogether.

The SCOTUS said, "Not constitutional as written."

At least that was my understanding.

[Little-Acorn]

I thought the president could either ignore the bill, sign it, or veto it.....didn't realize that the president could use a tactic like a signing statement to circumvent the intent of the bill.


He can't.

He can circumvent the intent of a bill, simply by refusing to enforce it (see "Federal Immigration laws"). Maybe he can't do it legally, but since when has that worried a liberal? They do it (in both parties) all the time.

But simply writing out a statement (either at the bill signing, or at any other time) saying you're going to do that, simply has no legal force at all. It doesn't matter. If I stand up and say I'm going to rob a bank, have I committed a crime? No. I might cause people to watch me a little more closely, but nobody can put me in jail for that... unless I actually rob the bank.

All this furor over "signing statements" has two components:

1.) The President trying to pretend he has some power he actually doesn't have: the power to refuse to enforce duly enacted law, and

2.) Silly people believing him.

Of course, this is the first step liberals often use to GET that new power. It's just Goebbels' philosophy writ large: "If you tell a big enough lie, often enough, people will believe it, and it will become the truth."

Of course, if the President eventually actually refuses to enforce Federal law (see the above example), that's a different matter. But announcing an intention to do so in a "signing statement", is simply hot air, with zero import.

[SassyLady]

He can't.

He can circumvent the intent of a bill, simply by refusing to enforce it (see "Federal Immigration laws"). Maybe he can't do it legally, but since when has that worried a liberal? They do it (in both parties) all the time.

But simply writing out a statement (either at the bill signing, or at any other time) saying you're going to do that, simply has no legal force at all. It doesn't matter. If I stand up and say I'm going to rob a bank, have I committed a crime? No. I might cause people to watch me a little more closely, but nobody can put me in jail for that... unless I actually rob the bank.

All this furor over "signing statements" has two components:

1.) The President trying to pretend he has some power he actually doesn't have: the power to refuse to enforce duly enacted law, and

2.) Silly people believing him.

Of course, this is the first step liberals often use to GET that new power. It's just Goebbels' philosophy writ large: "If you tell a big enough lie, often enough, people will believe it, and it will become the truth."

Of course, if the President eventually actually refuses to enforce Federal law (see the above example), that's a different matter. But announcing an intention to do so in a "signing statement", is simply hot air, with zero import.

Once again ... if it's just hot air, and has zero import, then why spend the time and effort creating a signing statement?

[Kathianne]

Once again ... if it's just hot air, and has zero import, then why spend the time and effort creating a signing statement?

It's not hot air, as LA himself has alluded to regarding immigration. ICE is in effect circumventing Federal Law when they fail to arrest those in the US illegally, brought to attention by local law enforcement.

Unless Congress chooses to make a 'Supreme Court issue' of it, there is little to stop the non-enforcement. The legislators can say to the people, "We passed the law." The President can say, "ICE has their orders." What really can the people do other than vote, which many are too ignorant to see the problem, if they bother to vote. Those are the 'low-information' voters.

[revelarts]

The President directs all of the agencies. when he makes a serious signing statement the agencies take note and follow the lead of the boss. most do anyway . One of my older cousins used to work in Washington, at an unamed agency. She told me she didn't like it when a new president came in because they often changed the focus or policies of the agency. When a new law comes down the pipe the agency that implements it must follow the law as outlined or lead by their boss, president X, until told otherwise by the courts. The congressmen might visit and complain but they have no authority on floor in the dept of immigration, or the FDA to make them do anything outside of the creating the law. The justice dept is a clear case in point there are a LOT of laws on the books and illegalities they CAN pursue, which ones get priority are determined by the President and attorney general and walk thru by the Dept of justice staff fast and furious like.

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

[SassyLady]

Almost makes one want to have a tea party and start all over again.

[Kathianne]

Almost makes one want to have a tea party and start all over again.

Indeed.