Hey Bully! On Those Signing Statements? He's Not In Office Yet

[bullypulpit]

Good morning, sir. My point those few years back, my point last evening was that presidents tend to use the powers they have. Whatever restraints they may place on themselves are more than likely a combination of situations and personality.

Indeed as long as legal I'd allow the system to work, those pesky checks & balances. For one reason or another when not in control the tendency of the Democrats is to try to 'ban' certain powers. Sometimes they are saved from themselves, like when they tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate. If you'd had your druthers, you'd have taken this executive option away. My guess is we will see Obama using it quite frequently, as a way to get things he wants accomplished with little or no noise. Indeed it's as close to a line item veto as available.

Unfortunately, Bush did not, and does not have the power to choose which laws or portions portions thereof he will choose to ignore or fail to enforce, which is exactly what he's done in his use of signing statements. He can only sign the bill or veto it in its entirety. The Supreme Court already ruled on this when it struck down a presidential line item veto as being an unconstitutional abridgment of the separation of powers. Oh, and that was the Senate Republicans that tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate with the so called "nuclear option".

So long as signing statements and executive orders respect the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, I don't care who uses them. Bush stepped over the line, and has yet to be held accountable for it, not that he ever will at this late date in his presidency. But a lack of accountability has been a hallmark of his life and his presidency.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunately, Bush did not, and does not have the power to choose which laws or portions portions thereof he will choose to ignore or fail to enforce, which is exactly what he's done in his use of signing statements. He can only sign the bill or veto it in its entirety. The Supreme Court already ruled on this when it struck down a presidential line item veto as being an unconstitutional abridgment of the separation of powers. Oh, and that was the Senate Republicans that tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate with the so called "nuclear option".

So long as signing statements and executive orders respect the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, I don't care who uses them. Bush stepped over the line, and has yet to be held accountable for it, not that he ever will at this late date in his presidency. But a lack of accountability has been a hallmark of his life and his presidency.

Ok. As long as you hold Obama to same standard. Bush issued fewer than Clinton, perhaps the trend is set. I just found it ironic, that before even taking office, the 'executive powers' were being brought up by MSM. No clarity given, what they call 'executive powers' seem to fall within the purview of signing statements. In any case, other than this minnie flame, he will have the powers. My point was that neither party out of power should be too quick for abolishing powers they may well want, for good reasons, down the line.

[bullypulpit]

Ok. As long as you hold Obama to same standard. Bush issued fewer than Clinton, perhaps the trend is set. I just found it ironic, that before even taking office, the 'executive powers' were being brought up by MSM. No clarity given, what they call 'executive powers' seem to fall within the purview of signing statements. In any case, other than this minnie flame, he will have the powers. My point was that neither party out of power should be too quick for abolishing powers they may well want, for good reasons, down the line.

Indeed, Bush did issue fewer signing statements than Clinton, but Clinton did not use the signing statements to declare what law or parts thereof he would ignore or refuse to enforce, which is what Bush did. If Clinton had substantial issues with a bill he vetoed it and sent it back to Congress, if he didn't, he signed it. Any signing statements were simply opinions about aspects of the bill he found troubling, but not worth vetoing. And this is all the Constitution allows the President to do.

[Little-Acorn]

As I pointed out every time people here started bitching about Bush's "signing statements":

They do not have the force of law. They are nothing more than decorations. Fripperies. Completely unimportant frills.

Only things PASSED BY CONGRESS have the force of law when signed by the President. "Signing statements" haven't been. The Prez can write anything he wants at the bottom of a bill, it will make no difference whatsoever. True for Bush, equally true for Obama when he becomes President.

Signing statements, whether written by Bush or by Obama, are a complete non-issue.

[Psychoblues]

Au Contraire, LA. Pre bush signing statements have been used for exactly as you intimate but the lil' one changed all that. He uses them to subvert and modify legislation all the time.

As I pointed out every time people here started bitching about Bush's "signing statements":

They do not have the force of law. They are nothing more than decorations. Fripperies. Completely unimportant frills.

Only things PASSED BY CONGRESS have the force of law when signed by the President. "Signing statements" haven't been. The Prez can write anything he wants at the bottom of a bill, it will make no difference whatsoever. True for Bush, equally true for Obama when he becomes President.

Signing statements, whether written by Bush or by Obama, are a complete non-issue.

He has a choice to either sign the legislation accompanied with an understanding of it's meaning to him with a signing statement or to veto it. Rather than veto it the lil' one signs it then effectively reverses it's meaning with a signing statement. That, my friend, is one of the reasons why the United States of America has now clearly rejected for the most part the ideology of the unitary president.

Obama, now being faced with these same type issues and decisions, would do very well by adhering to pre bush legislative practises and considerations and I think he will. bush, however, has made significant strides in diminishing our democracy by his use of legislative subversions and there may be in the near future a need for our independent legislative branch to permanently restrict actions and orders from the executive. That, after all, is one of the reasons why they exist.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Psychoblues

[bullypulpit]

As I pointed out every time people here started bitching about Bush's "signing statements":

They do not have the force of law. They are nothing more than decorations. Fripperies. Completely unimportant frills.

Only things PASSED BY CONGRESS have the force of law when signed by the President. "Signing statements" haven't been. The Prez can write anything he wants at the bottom of a bill, it will make no difference whatsoever. True for Bush, equally true for Obama when he becomes President.

Signing statements, whether written by Bush or by Obama, are a complete non-issue.

Bush's signing statements do indeed make an assertion of presidential authority which undermines the the will of Congress and the Constitution, particularly those issued with the intent to assert the will of the "unitary executive". Bush has asserted, on numerous occasions, that he can ignore a law or provisions of a law, regardless of the intent of Congress. There is simply no provision for this in the Constitution. If he objects to a bill his only option is to veto it, not sign it then declare his intent to ignore it.

Bush has used signing statements to nullify key portions of laws in an assertion of, and he is the only President to have ever done so. And his assertion of the privilege of a "unitary executive" is nothing more than an assertion of unchecked presidential power which undermines the doctrine of the Separation of Powers and the very foundation of liberty itself.

This principle is clearly outlined in the second paragraph of <a href=http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed51.htm>the Federalist Papers, No. 51</a>:

<blockquote><b>In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government</b>, which to a certain extent <b>is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty</b>, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. </blockquote>

[bullypulpit]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

Still waiting...? Or was your reading comprehension simply not up to the task?

[Psychoblues]

Maybe she's taken a liking to those chicken guts and is back down at the bait shop pickin' up a quart or two to hold her over 'till the 1st of the month?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Still waiting...? Or was your reading comprehension simply not up to the task?

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Well you just knew this would come up again? I can't wait to see Bully go nuclear regarding Obama's use of signing statements:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1244245053

Friday, June 5, 2009

[John Elwood, June 5, 2009 at 7:37pm]
Presidential Signing Statements -- The More Things Change: I'm sure it's only a matter of time until the ABA denounces as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers" President Obama's use of signing statements to voice constitutional concerns about legislation he signs into law. See ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Report at 5 (July 24, 2006) ("ABA Task Force Report"). The President quietly issued another such signing statement on Tuesday, the fourth constitutional signing statement of his young presidency....

For those of you keeping score at home, based on the listing of signing statements on coherentbabble.com (which includes both constitutional signing statements and uncontroversial rhetorical or laudatory signing statements), President Obama has issued more constitutional signing statements than President Bush had at this point in his presidency (by my count, four versus one).

[Kathianne]

*bump* I figure Bully must have missed this.

[red states rule]

*bump* I figure Bully must have missed this.

I have noticed that BP, and his liberal friends, have "missed" alot of posts and threads about Obama, his policies, and how on some things - Obama is doing the same things Pres Bush did - andthey were pissed off over it

Looks like perhaps they are having issues with their computer and can't respond Kat - it can't be they have double standards and are ignoring the actions of Obama

[bullypulpit]

Nothin' to miss. The signing statement was regarding a ceremonial function, not stating that the POTUS may ignore any parts of the law he disagrees with as his predecessor did with major pieces of legislation...completely undermining the oversight function of Congress and the separation of powers as Bush did with, amongst many others...

<blockquote>March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders. - <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/>The Boston Globe</a></blockquote>

Nice try guys...

[Kathianne]

Nothin' to miss. The signing statement was regarding a ceremonial function, not stating that the POTUS may ignore any parts of the law he disagrees with as his predecessor did with major pieces of legislation...completely undermining the oversight function of Congress and the separation of powers as Bush did with, amongst many others...

<blockquote>March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders. - <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/>The Boston Globe</a></blockquote>

Nice try guys...

Well perhaps the one, but:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r111:S23MR9-0018:

and there's more Bully, but you can look them up yourself and get all hot and calling for investigations...

[glockmail]

Hey Bully, can we call Obama "McChimpy" like you did to Bush for 8 years?