posted
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional,"
posted
How's it hangen fellas? Bdgee can you give me an example of what a signing statement is? Is it a statement that says something like "this bill sucks", or "don't pay attention to this one". I guess the impression I have is is it similar to a written dissenting opinion on the supreme court? These signing statements are political postering I would assume. And what effect does it have on the bill?
Also is there precedent for these "signing statements"?
posted
Well, he sure has shown more than disrespect for the Constitution, which is actually the Country.
But Specter may be just running a ruse for the administration, like he has before.....you know, speak as if you are going to play leader in a Congressional bid for responsibility, then manage to get it to a hearing in "his" commettee, where, as Chairman, he can buffer or neutralize any actual effort at checks and ballances, while still playing the part of the responsible Congressman for the sake of getting re-elected next time..
IP: Logged |
It is a statement that he assumes that he is not bound by the restrictions of the Congressional bill that he is signing into law. Thus, he is claiming the right of a king not to be controlled by the people. The shrubery likes to claim it has been a common practice of previous presidents, but that "common" claim is far fetched. This guy has made signing statements in almost all cases where congress has passed a law saying the president (or anyone else) may not do certain things, like he did with their bill to stop torture.
IP: Logged |
posted
he writes these in, saying he can interpret the law to be unconstitutional if he wants to, and then gets spanked by his own supreme court too... the boy just ain't right in the head...
i don't care what office he holds....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Is he changing the law with these statements? Or does he follow the law even though his signing statement might say he doesn't believe in the interpretation? IE does the signing statement reflect later actions by administration that violate the law?
quote:Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed Tex. My God 800+. That is what jumps out at me.
Probably won't hear much from me over the next few days. I got into this energy stock today and I'm going to dig into alternative fuel and study it. Got to be something we can do. Also have a big soccer tournament I have to help run. Not my favorite sport but pays the bills.
posted
Remember when you were 5 years old and truely believed that promising to do something with you fingers crossed behind your back meant you could tell the lie and get away with not living up to your promise?
The rest of us had to grow up. dubya's still an imamature spoilt rich kid unwilling to accept responsibility or recognize the damage his childish attitudes have on others.
IP: Logged |
posted
me. me. i am the king, er i mean president...
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating "whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
What is the motivation? This is nothing that makes him or anyone immune from prosecution. It is his administration's interpretation of the bill. I am not seeing the link to the lack of vetos. This is nothing like a veto, nor does it constitute any kind of official decision making on his part. Why does he do it?
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: What is the motivation? This is nothing that makes him or anyone immune from prosecution. It is his administration's interpretation of the bill. I am not seeing the link to the lack of vetos. This is nothing like a veto, nor does it constitute any kind of official decision making on his part. Why does he do it?
JW, no real reason. It's kinda like sports, when an athlete realizes there's a shot at the record book. He knows others will be judged by history as the actual architects of the stunning victory in Iraq. He knows others will grab credit for the deficit. etc, etc... This is *one pure thing* he can make his own...
[ July 25, 2006, 23:53: Message edited by: T e x ]
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
1. Both houses of Congress pass a bill that is then sent to the President, whose options, according to the Constitution are to veto the bill and return it to Congress immediately, sign the bill, at which time it becomes a law, or "pocket veto" the bill by failing to sign it within 10 days.
2. If the president "pocket vetos" the bill and Congress is in session, the bill becomes law without his signature.
3. If the president "pocket vetos" the bill and Congress is in adjournment, the effect is to be a veto of the bill.
4. Once the bill becomes a law, it is a law for everyone, including the president, unless the Constitution says he can ignore it.
5, The Oath of Office of the President states that he will faithfully uphold the Constitution, including laws properly in force under the provisions of the Constitution.
6. If dubya has signed into law (or some previous President) or a pocket veto has of a bill has allowed it to become a law or the Congress has over-ridden a veto, then the law is in effect and, if the bill says performing some act is a high crime or a misdemeanor but dubya has ignore it and done what the law says is not legal........
IP: Logged |
posted
I think he believes he is on the right side of these issues and wants his views recorded in history. He wants to go down in history as tough on terrorism. That is why he is doing this. if this gives him no official permission to perform the acts he is mentioning in his signature statement, than it is pointless to do this.
This is a move by the moderates to distance themselves from Bush. And IMO it is a pretty smart move on their part.
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: I think he believes he is on the right side of these issues and wants his views recorded in history. He wants to go down in history as tough on terrorism. That is why he is doing this. if this gives him no official permission to perform the acts he is mentioning in his signature statement, than it is pointless to do this.
This is a move by the moderates to distance themselves from Bush. And IMO it is a pretty smart move on their part.
quote:Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
JW, more non-terrorism here in these highlights than there is terrorism....
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: I think he believes he is on the right side of these issues and wants his views recorded in history. He wants to go down in history as tough on terrorism. That is why he is doing this. if this gives him no official permission to perform the acts he is mentioning in his signature statement, than it is pointless to do this.
This is a move by the moderates to distance themselves from Bush. And IMO it is a pretty smart move on their part.
then why is he telling whistle blowers to shut the heck up?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Guys I know what your saying. That is what is making me scratch my head here. First, if I'm going to break the law, I'm not going to right down that hey, I think this law is crap and I reserve the right to disregard it. Second, his statments are his interpretation of what the constitution says correct? It doesn't change what the constitution says, nor does his interpretation make his actions legal/illegal. Now can a court look at this and make a judgement on his statement?
Let's say a law comes to him that says: no j-walking and he says well the my understanding of the constitution reads that you can j-walk if you have to take a leak. What now? Does he now feel that he can j- walk?
The kicker here is does he act on his interpretation?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
