Originally Posted by
bullypulpit
A 6/27/06 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that:
<blockquote>We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President's unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President on the enactment of laws. But this President has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which part of the law the President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.</blockquote>
The results of this hearing were cited in the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, which I will refer to as the "ABA Task Force" for the rest of the discussion.
The following recommendations were the result of the unanimous agreement of the members of the Task Force, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative...
<blockquote>- Oppose as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers a President's issuance of signing statements to claim authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.</blockquote>
The rest of the recommendations can be read <a href=http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf>HERE</a>
The upshot is that even Bill Clinton ran their signing statements through the Office of Legal Counsel regarding his authority to challenge or reject portions of a bill he found controversial. George W. Bush, on the other hand, ran bills through Dick Cheney's office in search of perceived threats to the "unitary executive", a concept found nowhere in the Constitution.
Much as you may be inclined to believe otherwise, President Bush's use of signing statements goes far beyond that of his predecessors...From simply stating views on a given law or provision therein...To asserting authority to ignore provisions of laws he has signed. Article 7 of the Constitution plainly states:
<blockquote>Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, <b>shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives</b>, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.</blockquote>
He can either sign the laws or veto them and send them back to Congress and nothing else.
Nor does the Constitution provide him the authority to ignore or fail to enforce laws or provisions thereof which he disagrees with as is stated in Article 2, section 3:
<blockquote>He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; <b>he shall take Care that <i>the Laws be faithfully executed</i></b>...</blockquote>
Again, the President cannot choose which laws or provisions thereof he will or will not enforce.
Good night, dear lady.