Signing Statements

[Wild Cobra]

Too early to tell, but President Obama has issued four signing statements by May 20th. President Bush only had one by this time on his first term. He didn't have four until July 30th.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

well they grilled bush for doing it so obama better watch it.

[Winehole23]

On what bills, and what do they say, WC?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the Bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.

[LnGrrrR]

on what bills, and what do they say, wc?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.

+1

[LnGrrrR]

Although, I would not be surprised in the least if Obama took up Bush's idea that the signing statement was something where he said how he would interpret the law, even meaning he might just not follow it if he deemed it necessary.

For all the differences between Obama and Bush, love of executive power and secrecy is CERTAINLY not one of them.

[Winehole23]

+1

[sam1617]

Is anyone surprised? Presidential powers have expanded repeatedly since the formation of our nation, most often at times of danger for our country (Lincoln, FDR, Bush to mention a few). Not often do our Presidents release the power that their predecessor got. I would expect this pattern to continue for all eternity until Congress and Supreme Court just don't matter at all.

[angrydude]

news flash: the President never had to use a line item veto or signing statement or whatever to get his point across.

He could just use his discretion to not fund/do whatever he wanted anyway.

[Winehole23]

news flash: the President never had to use a line item veto or signing statement or whatever to get his point across.

He could just use his discretion to not fund/do whatever he wanted anyway.Not true.

[Blake]

Too early to tell, but President Obama has issued four signing statements by May 20th. President Bush only had one by this time on his first term. He didn't have four until July 30th.

how many do you think Gore would have had by this time had he been elected instead of W?

why is this an issue for you?

[FromWayDowntown]

Is anyone surprised? Presidential powers have expanded repeatedly since the formation of our nation, most often at times of danger for our country (Lincoln, FDR, Bush to mention a few). Not often do our Presidents release the power that their predecessor got. I would expect this pattern to continue for all eternity until Congress and Supreme Court just don't matter at all.

Throughout the Bush Administration, that was my point about some of the arguments made by pro-Bush posters who were unalarmed by the extraordinary scope of executive power wielded by that administration. It's all fine and dandy when it's someone you like, but it's a bit harder to stomach when it's someone you oppose.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

how many do you think Gore would have had by this time had he been elected instead of W?

why is this an issue for you?
i don't even want to think about if gore had been elected.

[sam1617]

Throughout the Bush Administration, that was my point about some of the arguments made by pro-Bush posters who were unalarmed by the extraordinary scope of executive power wielded by that administration. It's all fine and dandy when it's someone you like, but it's a bit harder to stomach when it's someone you oppose.

Yeah, to me, the biggest disappointment of the George W Bush era to me is not anything to do with foreign policy, economic policy or anything like that. Its that when the Republicans has a good chance to shrink the federal government's power, they didn't instead they expanded it. It is damn frustrating. Its also the reason I have a new political theory, as long as there is a Democratic president, Republicans need to heavily control Congress, and whenever a Republican is President the opposing party should control Congress. As long as no one can do anything, America (and the world) wins.

[boutons_deux]

dubya ended up signing 100s of them, most of which said he wouldn't enforce the legislation, rather than simple qualifications or other notations.

dubya is documented as serial abuser of signing statements, basically in line with dickhead's idea that the Exec is the primary power, not to be held in check by the legislature or the courts.

As Conny said a couple weeks ago, if dubya did it something, it was by definition a priori legal. L'etat, c'est moi, is how French kings expressed it.

[ElNono]

too early to tell

+1

[FaithInOne]

Throughout the Bush Administration, that was my point about some of the arguments made by pro-Bush posters who were unalarmed by the extraordinary scope of executive power wielded by that administration. It's all fine and dandy when it's someone you like, but it's a bit harder to stomach when it's someone you oppose.

Bingo.

That's why small government is the only answer.

Obama will not be King of Americant forever. The pendulum WILL swing back to neocons eventually.

[LnGrrrR]

Bingo.

That's why small government is the only answer.

Obama will not be King of Americant forever. The pendulum WILL swing back to neocons eventually.

Are you implying that neocons weren't in favor of Executive power?

Technically, the pendulum swinging back would imply there might be a Pres who actually REDUCES exec power someday.

[FromWayDowntown]

For whatever it's worth, what follows are the complete texts of each of President Obama's signing statements:

1. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (2/17/09)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." The Act provides a direct fiscal boost to help lift our Nation from the greatest economic crisis in our lifetimes and lay the foundation for further growth. This recovery plan will help to save or create as many as three to four million jobs by the end of 2010, the vast majority of them in the private sector. It will make the most significant investment in America's roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system. It will make investments to foster reform in education, double renewable energy while fostering efficiency in the use of our energy, and improve quality while bringing down costs in healthcare. Middle-class families will get tax cuts and the most vulnerable will get the largest increase in assistance in decades.

The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that failure to act quickly would lead to the disappearance of millions of more jobs and national unemployment rates that could be in the double digits. I want to thank the Congress for coming together around this hard-fought compromise. No one policy or program will solve the challenges we face right now, nor will this crisis recede in a short period of time. However, with this Act we begin the process of restoring the economy and making America a stronger and more prosperous Nation.

My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation includes no earmarks. An oversight board will be charged with monitoring our progress as part of an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency. This board will be advised by experts—not just Government experts, not just politicians, but also citizens with years of expertise in management, economics, and accounting.

So much depends on what we do at this moment. This is not about the future of my Administration. This effort is about the future of our families and communities, our economy and our country. We are going to move forward carefully and transparently and as effectively as possible because so much is on the line. That is what we have already begun to do—drafting this plan with a level of openness for which the American people have asked and that this situation demands.


2. OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2009 (3/11/09)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009." This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.

As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.

* Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.

* United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.

* Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.

* Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

* Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.


3. OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009 (3/30/09)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 146, the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009." This landmark bill will protect millions of acres of Federal land as wilderness, protect more than 1,000 miles of rivers through the National Wild and Scenic River System, and designate thousands of miles of trails for the National Trails System. It also will authorize the 26 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System within the Department of the Interior.

Among other provisions, H.R. 146 designates three new units in our National Park System, enlarges the boundaries of several existing parks, and designates a number of National Heritage Areas. It creates a new national monument -- the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument –- and four new national conservation areas, and establishes the Wyoming Range Withdrawal Area. It establishes a collaborative landscape-scale restoration program with a goal of reducing the risk of wildfire and authorizes programs to study and research the effects of climate change on natural resources and other research-related activities.

Treasured places from coast to coast will benefit from H.R. 146, including Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan; Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; Oregon's Mount Hood; Idaho's Owyhee Canyons; the Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado; Zion National Park in Utah; remarkable landscapes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California; and wilderness-quality National Forest lands in Virginia and public lands in New Mexico.

This bipartisan bill has been many years in the making, and is one of the most important pieces of natural resource legislation in decades. This legislation also makes progress for which millions of Americans have long waited on another front. The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis. It creates new coordinated research activities through the National Institutes of Health that will connect the best minds and best practices from the best labs across the country, and focus their efforts through collaborative scientific research into a cure for paralysis, saving effort, money, and, most importantly, time. It will promote enhanced rehabilitation services for paralyzed Americans, helping develop better equipment and technology that allows them to live full and independent lives free from unnecessary barriers. This legislation will work to improve the quality of life for all those who live with paralysis, no matter the cause.

Section 8203 of the Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint certain members of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission "based on recommendations from each member of the House of Representatives, the district of which encompasses the Corridor." Because it would be an impermissible restriction on the appointment power to condition the Secretary's appointments on the recommendations of members of the House, I will construe these provisions to require the Secretary to consider such congressional recommendations, but not to be bound by them in making appointments to the Commission.


4. FRAUD ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009 (5/20/09)

Today I have signed into law S. 386, the "Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009." This Act provides Federal investigators and prosecutors with significant new criminal and civil tools to assist in holding accountable those who have committed financial fraud. These legislative enhancements will help the Department of Justice to combat mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, and related offenses, and to protect taxpayer money that has been expended on recent economic stimulus and rescue packages. With the tools that the Act provides, the Department of Justice and others will be better equipped to address the challenges that face the Nation in difficult economic times and to do their part to help the Nation respond to this challenge.

Section 5(d) of the Act requires every department, agency, bureau, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the United States to furnish to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a legislative entity, any information related to any Commission inquiry. As my Administration communicated to the Congress during the legislative process, the executive branch will construe this subsection of the bill not to abrogate any constitutional privilege.


5. CREATION OF RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION (6/2/09)

Today I am pleased today to sign into law, H.R. 131, which will create a Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission with the responsibility to plan, develop, and carry out activities to honor Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth. It is fitting that the life of our 40th President be commemorated on this occasion. The bill provides that the Commission will be composed of the Secretary of the Interior, four individuals whom I will appoint after considering the recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Foundation, and six members of Congress appointed by the congressional leadership. I wholeheartedly welcome the participation of members of Congress in the activities of the Commission. In accord with President Reagan's Signing Statement made upon signing similar commemorative legislation in 1983, I understand, and my Administration has so advised the Congress, that the members of Congress "will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of [such a] Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the act" in light of the separation of powers and the Appointments and Ineligibility Clauses of the Constitution (Public Papers of the President, Ronald Reagan, Vol. II, 1983, page 1390).

[clambake]

great read, fwd.

now, why are people bitching?

[Yonivore]

On what bills, and what do they say, WC?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the Bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.
Saying you will carry out a law so far as it doesn't infringe on your Article II powers as President, which was the gist of most of Bush's signing statements, is not the equivalent of a line-item veto.

[Wild Cobra]

In the first one, he talks about transparancy that hasn't happened. No big deal, we all knew he lied.

In the second one, he effectively has five line item vetoes(by the libtard use of the phrase):
Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.
Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

I might go over the third and fourth later, but this is the same type of thing you dimwitcrats cried about President Bush doing.

Think about your hypocrisy.

[Wild Cobra]

dubya ended up signing 100s of them, most of which said he wouldn't enforce the legislation, rather than simple qualifications or other notations.

159 signing statements is hardly "100's." you must be thinking of president Clinton. He made 381 signing statements.


dubya is documented as serial abuser of signing statements, basically in line with dickhead's idea that the Exec is the primary power, not to be held in check by the legislature or the courts.

Does that apply to President Clinton as well then? Since when, is stating in writing, that a president will not yield his authority, an abuse?

What memo did I miss?


As Conny said a couple weeks ago, if dubya did it something, it was by definition a priori legal. L'etat, c'est moi, is how French kings expressed it.
Actually, the ones that challenged the law were the ones that congress was imposing upon the Executive branch, which they cannot do because of the separation of powers. They were in essence saying the executive branch cannot be told by congress what to do. In reality, that's all President Obama has done as well. I applaud him for not giving in to congress. I only wish you liberals could be as respectful to President Bush for doing the same thing. I must question the lack of intelligence the congress has in trying to impose on the executive... Calling it a "priori" is being nice, rather than calling congress incompetent.

President Bush's 159 signing statements (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm)

President Obama's 5 (and growing) signing statements (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm)

[Wild Cobra]

On what bills, and what do they say, WC?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the Bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.
Find your favorite news attack on his signing statement, then go to the link I just posted, and read the signing statement for the date indicated.

I'll bet is was nothing more than saying he would not give up the executive power because congress cannot override his powers.

[LnGrrrR]

Saying you will carry out a law so far as it doesn't infringe on your Article II powers as President, which was the gist of most of Bush's signing statements, is not the equivalent of a line-item veto.

If a law interferes with a President's Article II powers, he does not have the right to wholesale ignore it. He has to challenge it through court. That's why we have a judiciary branch!

[LnGrrrR]

Find your favorite news attack on his signing statement, then go to the link I just posted, and read the signing statement for the date indicated.

I'll bet is was nothing more than saying he would not give up the executive power because congress cannot override his powers.

Why is there this belief that Congress can not write laws that puts checks on a President?

The only precedent for this sort of thinking is Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln. At least Lincoln's was during a time of war.

[Yonivore]

Why is there this belief that Congress can not write laws that puts checks on a President?

The only precedent for this sort of thinking is Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln. At least Lincoln's was during a time of war.
I think the belief is that Congress, pursuant to their Article I power to make law, can't make one that supercedes or negates or otherwise make impotent, an Article II power of the Executive.

That's the thinking. Changes to the Constitution are to be done in a certain manner; by amendment and ratified by the States. Congress can't just pass a law that puts an unconstitutional check on the executive.

[ElNono]

I think the belief is that Congress, pursuant to their Article I power to make law, can't make one that supercedes or negates or otherwise make impotent, an Article II power of the Executive.

That's the thinking. Changes to the Constitution are to be done in a certain manner; by amendment and ratified by the States. Congress can't just pass a law that puts an unconstitutional check on the executive.

They certainly can. And the avenue the President must pursue if he believes such law is trumping his constitutional powers is to challenge it on a court of law (this would be the case when his veto power is superseded by a supermajority by congress). The reason a congressional supermajority that overrides the executive veto exists is for this exact reason.
We have a branch of the government that interprets the law, and checks for constitutional boundaries. It's called the Judiciary branch, not the Executive.
That's why passing laws like retroactive immunity is cheating on the system.

[LnGrrrR]

That's the thinking. Changes to the Constitution are to be done in a certain manner; by amendment and ratified by the States. Congress can't just pass a law that puts an unconstitutional check on the executive.

Agreed. But the PRESIDENT doesn't get to decide if the law is unconstitutional or not; that's the point of the judiciary branch. The judiciary branch determines not only how the law works, but whether a law is constitutional or not.

[Yonivore]

They certainly can. And the avenue the President must pursue if he believes such law is trumping his constitutional powers is to challenge it on a court of law (this would be the case when his veto power is superseded by a supermajority by congress).
No, he can just ignore it and force them to take him to court. He's not obligated to give up an Article II power until the courts sort it out. In fact, he and the Congress both took an oath to uphold the constitution.

The Congress can seek judicial relief, in the form of an injunction, but, beyond that, the President is under no obligation to blindly follow a law he believes to be unconstitutional while it works it way through the court system.


The reason a congressional supermajority that overrides the executive veto exists is for this exact reason.
Well, the rules for vetoes and for overiding that veto are spelled out in the Constitution.



We have a branch of the government that interprets the law, and checks for constitutional boundaries. It's called the Judiciary branch, not the Executive.

That's why passing laws like retroactive immunity is cheating on the system.
And, that's where Congress would take their case if they believed the president were not faithfully executing either the law or his Article II responsibilities.

Sorry, the president is under no obligation to adhere to a crappy law. That's what the courts are for. Congress can sue him....and, on occasion, have. But, usually, they just call a bunch of meaningless hearings until they've bloviated it out of their collective system.

[LnGrrrR]

The Congress can seek judicial relief, in the form of an injunction, but, beyond that, the President is under no obligation to blindly follow a law he believes to be unconstitutional while it works it way through the court system.

Yes, this is obviously somewhat of a gray area. I agree that it's not inconceivable to think that the President could get away with this. I wouldn't be half as annoyed if a large majority of Congress weren't executive loving wimps.

Per our system of government, the President should comply with the law until it's overturned. However, in the real world, your example would hold true.

[ElNono]

No, he can just ignore it and force them to take him to court. He's not obligated to give up an Article II power until the courts sort it out. In fact, he and the Congress both took an oath to uphold the constitution.


This is already contemplated in the Judicial system. It's called an order of stay. All the president has to do is ask the judge to grant that order. Judges normally do in these matters.


The Congress can seek judicial relief, in the form of an injunction, but, beyond that, the President is under no obligation to blindly follow a law he believes to be unconstitutional while it works it way through the court system.

Of course Congress can seek judicial relief. Or they can simply choose to impeach the president and take matters in their own hands.



Well, the rules for vetoes and for overiding that veto are spelled out in the Constitution.

And, that's where Congress would take their case if they believed the president were not faithfully executing either the law or his Article II responsibilities.

Sorry, the president is under no obligation to adhere to a crappy law. That's what the courts are for. Congress can sue him....and, on occasion, have. But, usually, they just call a bunch of meaningless hearings until they've bloviated it out of their collective system.

According to the Constitution he swore to uphold, yes he is under obligation to adhere to the law, crappy or not. He always has the option to veto if the law didn't enjoy a supermajority, which is his right.
But under a supermajority case, he has a way through the Judicial system to repel any laws he doesn't agree with. And that's the proper way to do things.
Intentionally ignoring and violating a law he doesn't agree with, without challenging it in court is a crime.

[FromWayDowntown]

According to the Constitution he swore to uphold, yes he is under obligation to adhere to the law, crappy or not.

The President swears that he or she will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Art. II, s. 1, cl. 8. I'm not sure that such an oath necessarily means that the President is compelled to adhere to laws (or parts thereof) that are deemed facially unconstitutional.

In fact, I'd think that the manifest problem wtih saying that the President has a threshold obligation to challenge a law through the courts is that in most instances, there will not be an actual case or controversy to frame the dispute. No federal court can decide a question of law without an actual case or controversy.

I think the problem that Bush critics had with signing statements weren't necessarily the signing statements themselves -- as noted, they're fairly traditional at this point -- or the refusal to comply with laws he deemed to infringe on his Article II powers. To me the controversy about Bush's signing statements arises from things like the explicit adoption of the unitary executive theory and the concommitant notion that he was, essentially, bound by no law so long as he can argue that an action is taken in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.

What's true of the Bush practice is this: he (or Cheney) found a group of lawyers who argued rabidly for unprecedented expansions of Presidential power in times of "war," however vaguely defined, and used signing statements to make clear that he would keep his own counsel as to the extent to which he would feel himself bound constitutionally. As we've seen over time, the objective correctness of that counsel is questionable and as cases and controversies arise and make their way through the federal courts, at least some of what Bush's advisors told him about his constitutional powers is being shot down.

[LnGrrrR]

I think the problem that Bush critics had with signing statements weren't necessarily the signing statements themselves -- as noted, they're fairly traditional at this point -- or the refusal to comply with laws he deemed to infringe on his Article II powers. To me the controversy about Bush's signing statements arises from things like the explicit adoption of the unitary executive theory and the concommitant notion that he was, essentially, bound by no law so long as he can argue that an action is taken in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.

What's true of the Bush practice is this: he (or Cheney) found a group of lawyers who argued rabidly for unprecedented expansions of Presidential power in times of "war," however vaguely defined, and used signing statements to make clear that he would keep his own counsel as to the extent to which he would feel himself bound constitutionally. As we've seen over time, the objective correctness of that counsel is questionable and as cases and controversies arise and make their way through the federal courts, at least some of what Bush's advisors told him about his constitutional powers is being shot down.

This is a good point. Even signing statements such as his wouldn't be taken as seriously if not for the mindset that the War on Terror made our President a "war-time" president, with all the emergency provisions that entails. A permanent state of emergency is highly detrimental to our system of government, and defeats the very purpose of those 'emergency' powers.

[Wild Cobra]

They certainly can. And the avenue the President must pursue if he believes such law is trumping his constitutional powers is to challenge it on a court of law (this would be the case when his veto power is superseded by a supermajority by congress). The reason a congressional supermajority that overrides the executive veto exists is for this exact reason.So you suggest we bog down the courts even farther? Separation of powers is clear. Congress cannot supersede presidential authority. It's a matter of who blinks first for a court case. The president basically says "that affects the Executive Powers," so it doesn't apply to us. If congress doesn't like it, they can take it to court.
We have a branch of the government that interprets the law, and checks for constitutional boundaries. It's called the Judiciary branch, not the Executive.
That's why passing laws like retroactive immunity is cheating on the system.
OK, take that to court, and show that the executive request to protect this nation didn't create an automatic immunity. The law was to stop litigation, that would lose anyway, and hurt corporations, making lawyers rich.

The President swears that he or she will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Art. II, s. 1, cl. 8. I'm not sure that such an oath necessarily means that the President is compelled to adhere to laws (or parts thereof) that are deemed facially unconstitutional. I think it's pretty easily understood that the president is obligated to ignore laws passed by congress that interfere with his sworn duties. I would expect congress to do the same with an executive order that infringes on their duties.


In fact, I'd think that the manifest problem wtih saying that the President has a threshold obligation to challenge a law through the courts is that in most instances, there will not be an actual case or controversy to frame the dispute. No federal court can decide a question of law without an actual case or controversy. Agreed, and funny how the democrats cry about it, but don't take it to court. Think it's because they know they will lose?


I think the problem that Bush critics had with signing statements weren't necessarily the signing statements themselves -- as noted, they're fairly traditional at this point -- or the refusal to comply with laws he deemed to infringe on his Article II powers. To me the controversy about Bush's signing statements arises from things like the explicit adoption of the unitary executive theory and the concommitant notion that he was, essentially, bound by no law so long as he can argue that an action is taken in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. I would agree if he did such things to effectively make it a line item veto on laws outside the executive branch. As long as the signing statement affects the usage on the executive branch, I see no problems.


What's true of the Bush practice is this: he (or Cheney) found a group of lawyers who argued rabidly for unprecedented expansions of Presidential power in times of "war," however vaguely defined, and used signing statements to make clear that he would keep his own counsel as to the extent to which he would feel himself bound constitutionally. As we've seen over time, the objective correctness of that counsel is questionable and as cases and controversies arise and make their way through the federal courts, at least some of what Bush's advisors told him about his constitutional powers is being shot down.
Questionable or not, I say the president is bound by constitution to ignore parts of law that interfere with his duties.

[Wild Cobra]

According to the Constitution he swore to uphold, yes he is under obligation to adhere to the law, crappy or not.Doesn't it go something like "faithfully execute the law." That does not mean the black and white of the law, but "in a loyal manner." To accept an unjust law would not be loyal or faithful.
He always has the option to veto if the law didn't enjoy a supermajority, which is his right.You keep forgetting one thing. There is no place in the constitution that allows congress to supersede presidential authority, or the other was around. In fact, in Clinton v. City of New York, the line item veto was effectively scrubbed, because it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. The difference is that this was statute that didn't affect the executive power, but the law of the land.

But under a supermajority case, he has a way through the Judicial system to repel any laws he doesn't agree with. And that's the proper way to do things. Intentionally ignoring and violating a law he doesn't agree with, without challenging it in court is a crime.I would argue congress passing laws that affect the executive branch powers laid out by constitution are a crime, therefor not enforceable.

[ElNono]

The President swears that he or she will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Art. II, s. 1, cl. 8. I'm not sure that such an oath necessarily means that the President is compelled to adhere to laws (or parts thereof) that are deemed facially unconstitutional.

In fact, I'd think that the manifest problem wtih saying that the President has a threshold obligation to challenge a law through the courts is that in most instances, there will not be an actual case or controversy to frame the dispute. No federal court can decide a question of law without an actual case or controversy.

I think the problem that Bush critics had with signing statements weren't necessarily the signing statements themselves -- as noted, they're fairly traditional at this point -- or the refusal to comply with laws he deemed to infringe on his Article II powers. To me the controversy about Bush's signing statements arises from things like the explicit adoption of the unitary executive theory and the concommitant notion that he was, essentially, bound by no law so long as he can argue that an action is taken in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.

What's true of the Bush practice is this: he (or Cheney) found a group of lawyers who argued rabidly for unprecedented expansions of Presidential power in times of "war," however vaguely defined, and used signing statements to make clear that he would keep his own counsel as to the extent to which he would feel himself bound constitutionally. As we've seen over time, the objective correctness of that counsel is questionable and as cases and controversies arise and make their way through the federal courts, at least some of what Bush's advisors told him about his constitutional powers is being shot down.

My point is not that he can't ignore or challenge the laws. The point is that there's a lawful way to do it, which is also the proper way to do it.
If Congress were to pass a law with supermajority that the president didn't agree with, he has two options:
1) Ignore/violate the law, and expose himself to potential impeachment for knowingly breaking such law, if Congress decides to sue and wins in court.
2) Sue and obtain a motion to stay. In this case he's legally protected to simply suspend the application of the law until the matter is resolved, with no secondary side effects.

I don't think Yoni understands the distinction or the consequences between 1 and 2.

[LnGrrrR]

I think it's pretty easily understood that the president is obligated to ignore laws passed by congress that interfere with his sworn duties. I would expect congress to do the same with an executive order that infringes on their duties.

Tell me, if the President stated that, for now on, he would create the budget for the defense department, and that he needed to do so under his powers to protect and defend the nation, would that be acceptable?
Agreed, and funny how the democrats cry about it, but don't take it to court. Think it's because they know they will lose?
I would agree if he did such things to effectively make it a line item veto on laws outside the executive branch. As long as the signing statement affects the usage on the executive branch, I see no problems.



Questionable or not, I say the president is bound by constitution to ignore parts of law that interfere with his duties.

He's not bound by the Constitution to do such. It doesn't specifically say in the Constitution he's to ignore power grabs by Congress.

Remember, the designers wanted the Executive to be weak... in fact, weaker than the legislative branch. Now, Congress would be stupid to create a law that directly violated the Constitution. But there are certainly gray areas.

Don't you think that Congress can put certain limits on a President's power? For instance, if Congress decided for one year not to fund the military... then the President would not be able to effectively control the military (as it wouldn't exist). There's nothing, theoretically, preventing them from doing so.

[LnGrrrR]

[quote=Wild Cobra;3442265]To accept an unjust law would not be loyal or faithful.quote]

Who determines whether the law is just or unjust?

[ElNono]

So you suggest we bog down the courts even farther? Separation of powers is clear. Congress cannot supersede presidential authority. It's a matter of who blinks first for a court case. The president basically says "that affects the Executive Powers," so it doesn't apply to us. If congress doesn't like it, they can take it to court.

See my answer to FromWayDowntown above about the consequences of doing that as opposed to the president himself suing and staying the law.


OK, take that to court, and show that the executive request to protect this nation didn't create an automatic immunity. The law was to stop litigation, that would lose anyway, and hurt corporations, making lawyers rich.


It obviously didn't create any 'automatic immunity' considering that a law had to be passed by Congress post facto in order to grant such immunity retroactively. And the cases did go to court, but the aforementioned law prevented them from going forward.

[Wild Cobra]

Who determines whether the law is just or unjust?
Let the court decide it once someone does take it to them. As long as congress doesn't challenge the signing statement, may as well consider that congress agrees!

[Wild Cobra]

See my answer to FromWayDowntown above about the consequences of doing that as opposed to the president himself suing and staying the law.
My God.

Don't you get it? The fact congress doesn't sue effectively gives the president the power to do so. Doesn't matter what your opinion is. Until someone takes it to court, it is the accepted practice.

It obviously didn't create any 'automatic immunity' considering that a law had to be passed by Congress post facto in order to grant such immunity retroactively. And the cases did go to court, but the aforementioned law prevented them from going forward.
Right... I would agree if I saw it from the viewpoint that the executive branch has duties that cannot be constrained by a lower law than the constitution.

It keeps coming down to this with you. You think a statute can violate the constitutional powers of the president. You are wrong!

Ignore what I said about doing it to to keep the telecommunications corporations from losing millions to defend a case they shouldn't have to. If the lawyers and activists don't like the law, let them take it to court. It's now their turn.

[ElNono]

Doesn't it go something like "faithfully execute the law." That does not mean the black and white of the law, but "in a loyal manner." To accept an unjust law would not be loyal or faithful.

The Judiciary decides which laws are unjust, unconstitutional, etc. That is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. If the Executive now attributes himself the ability to interpret laws, then it's interfering directly with the separation of powers.


You keep forgetting one thing. There is no place in the constitution that allows congress to supersede presidential authority, or the other was around.


Yes there is. Congressional supermajority supersedes the presidential veto authority. It's that way by design. Congress checks on the Executive. The Executive checks on the Judiciary (by means of selecting judges) and the Judiciary checks on Congress (by interpreting the law).


In fact, in Clinton v. City of New York, the line item veto was effectively scrubbed, because it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. The difference is that this was statute that didn't affect the executive power, but the law of the land.


Decided by the Judiciary. Exactly my point.


I would argue congress passing laws that affect the executive branch powers laid out by constitution are a crime, therefor not enforceable.

I don't think it has been tested in court, but I would say most any court will agree with you. But that's exactly why you take it to court. You don't unilaterally decide it doesn't apply and proceed to ignore/violate it.

[LnGrrrR]

Let the court decide it once someone does take it to them. As long as congress doesn't challenge the signing statement, may as well consider that congress agrees!

Ah, so it's ok for me to smoke crack until someone arrests me for it, correct? :D I mean, until I'm brought to court, and they say I'm guilty, then it's not REALLY illegal.

[Wild Cobra]

The Judiciary decides which laws are unjust, unconstitutional, etc. That is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. If the Executive now attributes himself the ability to interpret laws, then it's interfering directly with the separation of powers.



Yes there is. Congressional supermajority supersedes the presidential veto authority. It's that way by design. Congress checks on the Executive. The Executive checks on the Judiciary (by means of selecting judges) and the Judiciary checks on Congress (by interpreting the law).
You still don't get it. I don't care if 100% of congress voted for something, congress cannot strip away a presidential power granted by constitution. You seem to think so.


Decided by the Judiciary. Exactly my point.
Yes, but not till someone brings the case up.

Again (or are you ignoring this point,) since it isn't being brought to the courts, it is the accepted practice.


I don't think it has been tested in court, but I would say most any court will agree with you. But that's exactly why you take it to court. You don't unilaterally decide it doesn't apply and proceed to ignore/violate it.
Nor should congress create a law that steps on the presidential powers.

Which is worse. To ignore a law that is wrong, that there is no repercussion from, or follow a bad law that does have repercussions?

Think about that. Which is worse? Now also, why waste the time and money to take it to court when there is no real fallout from just ignoring it?

If you don't like it, find a signing statement that you can claim affects you, and take it to court. Get the precedent set. Otherwise, deal with it.

[Wild Cobra]

Ah, so it's ok for me to smoke crack until someone arrests me for it, correct? :D I mean, until I'm brought to court, and they say I'm guilty, then it's not REALLY illegal.
Perhaps an equally silly example would be congress making a law that says you cannot breath air. Would you wait and take that to court before breathing?

I wish one of these president would have the balls to call for the removal of those voting to violate the constitution. Have a wake-up call, and make congress careful not to trample on the constitution.

[ElNono]

My God.

Don't you get it? The fact congress doesn't sue effectively gives the president the power to do so. Doesn't matter what your opinion is. Until someone takes it to court, it is the accepted practice.



Ah, so it's ok for me to smoke crack until someone arrests me for it, correct? I mean, until I'm brought to court, and they say I'm guilty, then it's not REALLY illegal.

Exactly. It's like if a credit card company never sues me because I didn't want to pay them back the $300 I owed them, then does that mean I effectively never spent the money or owed them anything?
It's a matter of procedure. If the executive is going to be in the business of interpreting the law, then it's overstepping the powers granted to the judiciary on the Constitution.


Right... I would agree if I saw it from the viewpoint that the executive branch has duties that cannot be constrained by a lower law than the constitution.


That should be decided by the judiciary, not a bunch of lawyers hired by the executive.


It keeps coming down to this with you. You think a statute can violate the constitutional powers of the president. You are wrong!


I don't think it can. But it's up to the judiciary to decide wether such statute does or not. And THAT is my point. If the executive tomorrow believes that it can declare war without Congress approval in the name of protecting the nation you don't think a court would be involved in deciding that matter?


Ignore what I said about doing it to to keep the telecommunications corporations from losing millions to defend a case they shouldn't have to. If the lawyers and activists don't like the law, let them take it to court. It's now their turn.

They actually lost yesterday. I hear they're going to appeal to the Ninth circuit, but I doubt they're going anywhere with that law in place.

[Wild Cobra]

They actually lost yesterday. I hear they're going to appeal to the Ninth circuit, but I doubt they're going anywhere with that law in place.
They lost because the courts agree the executive branch had the right to use their capabilities in defending this nation. Had the telecommunications companies been taken to court, following executive direction, how many millions would they have spent to win the case, and who would reimburse them?

I'll bet it was a cut and dry case as well.

[ElNono]

Nor should congress create a law that steps on the presidential powers.

Ofcourse they shouldn't. It would be a clear violation of separation of powers. HOWEVER, if they would do so, who is responsible for determining the unconstitutionality of such law?


Which is worse. To ignore a law that is wrong, that there is no repercussion from, or follow a bad law that does have repercussions?

Think about that. Which is worse? Now also, why waste the time and money to take it to court when there is no real fallout from just ignoring it?

If you don't like it, find a signing statement that you can claim affects you, and take it to court. Get the precedent set. Otherwise, deal with it.

It's a matter of procedure. The application of a law can be easily stopped in it's tracks by the Judiciary. That's THEIR job, not the executive.
Ignoring/violating it does have consequences for the executive. Including impeachment or an actual compel order from a court directing the application of the law.

[FromWayDowntown]

My point is not that he can't ignore or challenge the laws. The point is that there's a lawful way to do it, which is also the proper way to do it.

If Congress were to pass a law with supermajority that the president didn't agree with, he has two options:
1) Ignore/violate the law, and expose himself to potential impeachment for knowingly breaking such law, if Congress decides to sue and wins in court.

2) Sue and obtain a motion to stay. In this case he's legally protected to simply suspend the application of the law until the matter is resolved, with no secondary side effects.

I don't think Yoni understands the distinction or the consequences between 1 and 2.

You're just flat wrong about #2 even being a possibility. You're saying that the President can file a lawsuit against Congress claiming that one of its acts is constitutionally infirm and can do so without a real controversy. That would necessarily mean that the courts could issue a wholly advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a law, which is fundamentally not true. I'd be interested to see some sort of legal authority for the idea that #2 would ever be a possibility.

I'm also not sure that a refusal to adhere to #1 would result in impeachment -- or even support impeachment. Again, the President's obligation is to support and defend the Constitution; in so doing, he is to faithfully execute the laws. But the executive branch and its agencies are alleged to have violated laws frequently and are sued by individuals who would be protected by those laws for those violations. Those suits are how the constitutionality of the law is frequently determined. Sometimes it favors the executive choice against enforcing a law; sometimes it favors the claimed right of the individual and sanctions the refusal to enforce the law.

Ultimately, our system of government would be hideously more ineffective than it already is if every disagreement between the Congress and the President about the putative constitutionality of any given provision of a law could become the subject of a pre-emptive lawsuit.

[ElNono]

They lost because the courts agree the executive branch had the right to use their capabilities in defending this nation. Had the telecommunications companies been taken to court, following executive direction, how many millions would they have spent to win the case, and who would reimburse them?

I'll bet it was a cut and dry case as well.

Not really. They lost because the judge deemed that Congress was pretty clear in the law as far as granting the immunity to the companies, and under such circumstances the cases couldn't go forward.
It didn't even get to the point of analyzing the executive decisions (other than to deny the DOJ states secret doctrine from being applied to the case).

[Wild Cobra]

Ofcourse they shouldn't. It would be a clear violation of separation of powers. HOWEVER, if they would do so, who is responsible for determining the unconstitutionality of such law?

Exactly. "It would be a clear violation of separation of powers." And because of that, it need not be taken to court.

The president decides it steps on his powers and says so. Again, since nobody is bringing it the courts after that, they effectively agree!

Why should I waste my time defending my actions against a clear violation, when I don't have to. Do you?


It's a matter of procedure. The application of a law can be easily stopped in it's tracks by the Judiciary. That's THEIR job, not the executive.
Ignoring/violating it does have consequences for the executive. Including impeachment or an actual compel order from a court directing the application of the law.
Then let them. Who's stopping them from saying "excuse me, you can't do that."

[LnGrrrR]

Perhaps an equally silly example would be congress making a law that says you cannot breath air. Would you wait and take that to court before breathing?

I wish one of these president would have the balls to call for the removal of those voting to violate the constitution. Have a wake-up call, and make congress careful not to trample on the constitution.

Yes, they're both equally silly examples. :D

As before, that's the 'gray area' I referred to. Sure, some laws are on their face acceptable, others are not. But there are some that MIGHT be Constitutional, but might not, depending on your view.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. They lost because the judge deemed that Congress was pretty clear in the law as far as granting the immunity to the companies, and under such circumstances the cases couldn't go forward.
It didn't even get to the point of analyzing the executive decisions (other than to deny the DOJ states secret doctrine from being applied to the case).
And wasn't the clarity of the law saying they did no wrong?

Why does an executive decision, authorized by constitution, need to be compared to a law beneath the constitution?

[Wild Cobra]

But there are some that MIGHT be Constitutional, but might not, depending on your view.
Yes, but until someone challenges the actions taken, the last action taken, stands.

[FromWayDowntown]

I wish one of these president would have the balls to call for the removal of those voting to violate the constitution. Have a wake-up call, and make congress careful not to trample on the constitution.

Please point me to the Presidential power to have Congressmen removed from office.

[ElNono]

You're just flat wrong about #2 even being a possibility. You're saying that the President can file a lawsuit against Congress claiming that one of its acts is constitutionally infirm and can do so without a real controversy. That would necessarily mean that the courts could issue a wholly advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a law, which is fundamentally not true. I'd be interested to see some sort of legal authority for the idea that #2 would ever be a possibility.

I'm also not sure that a refusal to adhere to #1 would result in impeachment -- or even support impeachment. Again, the President's obligation is to support and defend the Constitution; in so doing, he is to faithfully execute the laws. But the executive branch and its agencies are alleged to have violated laws frequently and are sued by individuals who would be protected by those laws for those violations. Those suits are how the constitutionality of the law is frequently determined. Sometimes it favors the executive choice against enforcing a law; sometimes it favors the claimed right of the individual and sanctions the refusal to enforce the law.

Ultimately, our system of government would be hideously more ineffective than it already is if every disagreement between the Congress and the President about the putative constitutionality of any given provision of a law could become the subject of a pre-emptive lawsuit.

The point being argued is a supposed law passed by Congress with a supermajority that limits presidential powers. Such a law that would clearly overstep the constitution, and obviously would only be possible with a complete disconnect between the executive and the legislative branches. The question imposed in such an imaginary case is, what recourse does the executive has if such scenario were to play out? It's been argued here that the executive can simply ignore such law without consequences, and I'm simply arguing otherwise. That there's a lawful way for the executive to actually ignore such law through the proper channels (that is, the judiciary).

In the real world, both congress and the executive work closely to amend differences and actually get things done without forcing anybody's hands for the most part.

[FromWayDowntown]

The point being argued is a supposed law passed by Congress with a supermajority that limits presidential powers. Such a law that would clearly overstep the constitution, and obviously would only be possible with a complete disconnect between the executive and the legislative branches. The question imposed in such an imaginary case is, what recourse does the executive has if such scenario were to play out? It's been argued here that the executive can simply ignore such law without consequences, and I'm simply arguing otherwise. That there's a lawful way for the executive to actually ignore such law through the proper channels (that is, the judiciary).

I understand the point being argued. I'm telling you that the executive has no way to assert a claim to be resolved by the judiciary without a case or controversy and that the only way for there to be a case or controversy to allow judicial involvement is for the executive to, in essence, ignore the law.

If you can explain to me how the courts can offer advisory opinions about laws in the absence of an actual case or controversy -- if you can give me an example of an instance in which such an opinion has been issued -- I'd be extremely interested in seeing that.

[ElNono]

Exactly. "It would be a clear violation of separation of powers." And because of that, it need not be taken to court.

The president decides it steps on his powers and says so. Again, since nobody is bringing it the courts after that, they effectively agree!

Why should I waste my time defending my actions against a clear violation, when I don't have to. Do you?

Should Congress pass tomorrow a law with a supermajority stating that the president is no longer the Commander in Chief, you don't think there will be a lawsuit presented from somebody from the executive (or not) the very same day along with a motion to stay? If you don't think so, you're more disconnected from reality than I thought.


Then let them. Who's stopping them from saying "excuse me, you can't do that."

Now that the memos came out, it looks like some bar associations are indeed saying that.

[ElNono]

I understand the point being argued. I'm telling you that the executive has no way to assert a claim to be resolved by the judiciary without a case or controversy and that the only way for there to be a case or controversy to allow judicial involvement is for the executive to, in essence, ignore the law.

The case/controversy is the actual enactment of a law that it's plainly unconstitutional. The executive and/or any other civilian would definitely have a case to present to a court of law.

[Wild Cobra]

Should Congress pass tomorrow a law with a supermajority stating that the president is no longer the Commander in Chief, you don't think there will be a lawsuit presented from somebody from the executive the very same day along with a motion to stay? I you think so, you're more disconnected from reality than I thought.

I think the whole nation, and media, would be laughing so hard...

It would also be so ridiculous, and obviously unconstitutional, that it wouldn't need to go to court.


Now that the memos came out, it looks like some bar associations are indeed saying that.
And just how does their opinion override the constitution.

I'm done with you if you're going to waste my time on bullshit that doesn't matter. FromWayDowntown has made some great points as well, but you keep thinking until it's tested, the first action applies. When the first action is a clear assault upon the constitution, any sane person should immediately realize it is unconstitutional, and need not waste the time of the court.

[FromWayDowntown]

The case/controversy is the actual enactment of a law that it's plainly unconstitutional. The executive and/or any other civilian would definitely have a case to present to a court of law.

I fundamentally believe that to be incorrect. If it were correct, we'd see the law books littered with cases between Presidents and Congress. We don't. That's because there has to be a violation of the law to support a challenge to its constitutionality.

[ElNono]

I think the whole nation, and media, would be laughing so hard...

It would also be so ridiculous, and obviously unconstitutional, that it wouldn't need to go to court.


So the law would stand. Which if we put into your 'first action' doctrine, it would make it automatically constitutional (since the executive doesn't challenge it, they must accept it's ok). :tu

[Wild Cobra]

The case/controversy is the actual enactment of a law that it's plainly unconstitutional. The executive and/or any other civilian would definitely have a case to present to a court of law.
OK, President Obama now has five recent cases he needs to brings to the Supreme Court. You think we need to burden the Supreme Court with cases that are so clear?

[Wild Cobra]

So the law would stand. Which if we put into your 'first action' doctrine, it would make it automatically constitutional (since the executive doesn't challenge it, they must accept it's ok). :tu
No, because by just ignoring it, he stays president!

[LnGrrrR]

They lost because the courts agree the executive branch had the right to use their capabilities in defending this nation. Had the telecommunications companies been taken to court, following executive direction, how many millions would they have spent to win the case, and who would reimburse them?

I'll bet it was a cut and dry case as well.

Do you think that FISA was unconstitutional?

Do you think Congress is within their rights to enact laws that limit the President in performing any of his constitutional duties?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think that FISA was unconstitutional?

Do you think Congress is within their rights to enact laws that limit the President in performing any of his constitutional duties?

No in both cases.

[ElNono]

I fundamentally believe that to be incorrect. If it were correct, we'd see the law books littered with cases between Presidents and Congress. We don't. That's because there has to be a violation of the law to support a challenge to its constitutionality.

The reason we don't is that this case is certainly a big stretch. I don't think we ever had a Congress/Executive pair that hated each other to present this type of scenario. Which really begs the question of what the conservative segment here is really worried about.

[LnGrrrR]

You're just flat wrong about #2 even being a possibility. You're saying that the President can file a lawsuit against Congress claiming that one of its acts is constitutionally infirm and can do so without a real controversy. That would necessarily mean that the courts could issue a wholly advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a law, which is fundamentally not true. I'd be interested to see some sort of legal authority for the idea that #2 would ever be a possibility.


Couldn't the President say he had standing to bring the case to court?

[Wild Cobra]

The reason we don't is that this case is certainly a big stretch. I don't think we ever had a Congress/Executive pair that hated each other to present this type of scenario. Which really begs the question of what the conservative segment here is really worried about.
I'm worried about a growing number of people like you who thinks an obvious violation of the constitution is OK.

[ElNono]

I'm worried about a growing number of people like you who thinks an obvious violation of the constitution is OK.

I never claimed that. I merely indicated that the only branch that can decide what's a violation of the constitution is the judiciary.
Which I also claim is the only branch of the government that can interpret the constitution as to determine where the executive powers start and end.

But thanks for twisting my words :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Couldn't the President say he had standing to bring the case to court?
Does he have to specify that? Why not clear statements like these:

This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions

Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
Does it matter who threatens to take an action to the court if no one does?

[Wild Cobra]

I never claimed that. I merely indicated that the only branch that can decide what's a violation of the constitution is the judiciary.
Which I also claim is the only branch of the government that can interpret the constitution as to determine where the executive powers start and end.

But thanks for twisting my words :tu
Fine. Then accept the fact that congress doesn't think they have a case to take it to court.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, but until someone challenges the actions taken, the last action taken, stands.

I would agree with you that, real world, this is exactly how it goes. However, according to the law, it's still breaking the law.

A good example of this would be speeding. If the cops never arrest someone going less then 80 in a 75 zone, does that mean it's 'legal' to drive at 78 MPH in a 75 zone? No, it doesn't.

However, due to their lack of prosecuting people who drive 78MPH, it becomes accepted and somewhat 'de facto' legal. And if it were brought up in court, the fact that it was never prosecuted (if proven) COULD possibly get the defendant off!

So, long story short, I (mostly) agree with you.

[LnGrrrR]

If you can explain to me how the courts can offer advisory opinions about laws in the absence of an actual case or controversy -- if you can give me an example of an instance in which such an opinion has been issued -- I'd be extremely interested in seeing that.

Not the courts, but doesn't DOJ do this most of the time?

[ElNono]

Fine. Then accept the fact that congress doesn't think they have a case to take it to court.

A blatant case would certainly be brought to court. I just don't think it's a feasible scenario, that's all. I mean, we have had senators suing to overturn laws that passed and they didn't agree with. Ultimately, the judiciary SHOULD have the last word as far as interpreting the law goes.

[FromWayDowntown]

Couldn't the President say he had standing to bring the case to court?

If there was a case, he might -- though I have some doubts about the President's ability to establish legal standing absent a wild hypothetical in which the Executive branch enforces the written law, in which the President himself goes out to violate the law and be deprived of the right the law attempts to secure for having violated the law, and then challenges the constitutionality of the law via a lawsuit.

Again, however, the problem is that there ISN'T A CASE OR CONTROVERSY!!!

A purely academic disagreement between the branches about the constitutionality of an act of one with respect to the other doesn't create a case or a controversy.

Here are some definitions of "advisory opinion":


An opinion by a court as to the legality of proposed legislation or conduct, given in response to a request by the government, legislature, or some other interested party.

Advisory opinions are issued in the absence of a case or controversy. Although they are not binding and carry no precedential value, they are sometimes offered as persuasive evidence in cases where no precedent exists.

Federal courts will not issue advisory opinions. This rule, based on the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers, was established in 1793 when John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, refused to provide legal advice in response to requests by President George Washington and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Washington asked the Court for advice relating to his Neutrality Proclamation in regard to the French Revolution. Hamilton asked Jay for an opinion on the constitutionality of a resolution passed by the Virginia House of Representatives. In both instances, the Court diplomatically but firmly refused to supply an opinion.

The Supreme Court has steadfastly resisted subsequent efforts to elicit advisory opinions, even when these efforts appear under the guise of an actual lawsuit. Thus, in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S. Ct. 250, 55 L. Ed. 246 (1911), the Court struck down an act of Congress that authorized the plaintiffs to sue the United States to determine the validity of certain laws. The Court found the lawsuits authorized by the act to be thinly veiled attempts to obtain advisory opinions, since the constitutional requirements of justiciability and an actual case or controversy were not satisfied. Justice William R. Day, writing for the Court, predicted that if the justices rendered a judgment in the case,

the result will be that this court, instead of keeping within the limits of judicial power and deciding cases or controversies arising between opposing parties, as the Constitution intended it should, will be required to give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative action, a function never conferred upon it by the Constitution.
Echoing the convictions expressed in Muskrat, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing on advisory opinions, said, "Every tendency to deal with constitutional questions abstractly, to formulate them in terms of barren legal questions, leads to … sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities."

Unlike their federal counterpart, a number of state constitutions authorize their courts to issue advisory opinions. However, even in those states, courts usually restrict advisory opinions to pending legislation and refuse requests for opinions on abstract or theoretical questions of law. In any event, the opinions are not binding authority in future cases.

Advisory opinions have their greatest effect as guides to policy making for the executive and legislative branches of state government. They are most often sought in the areas of intergovernmental relations, taxation, and finance.

Advisory opinions contrast with declaratory judgments, which determine the rights of litigants in an actual controversy and involve specific individuals who are at least nominally adverse to each other. Declaratory judgments are allowed by courts at both the federal and state levels. Although the line between advisory opinions and declaratory judgments is a fine one, the Supreme Court has consistently reiterated the necessity of keeping it intact. In Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S. Ct. 466, 80 L. Ed. 688 (1936), the justices insisted that the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which gives federal courts the power to issue declaratory judgments, "does not attempt to change the essential requisites for the exercise of judicial power." An actual, not theoretical, case or controversy between specific parties must still be shown. In another case, the Court stated specifically that the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot be invoked to "obtain an advisory decree upon a hypothetical state of facts" (Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 303 U.S. 419, 58 S. Ct. 678, 82 L. Ed. 936 [1938]).


An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may certify important questions to the judiciary and obtain an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.


I'd be fascinated for someone to tell me how the crazy hypothetical lawsuits being discussed in this thread could even remotely be possible in a world where advisory opinions are constitutionally forbidden!?!?!?

[FromWayDowntown]

The reason we don't is that this case is certainly a big stretch. I don't think we ever had a Congress/Executive pair that hated each other to present this type of scenario. Which really begs the question of what the conservative segment here is really worried about.

We don't have those suits in the books because they are categorically unconstitutional.

[LnGrrrR]

Does it matter who threatens to take an action to the court if no one does?

Not really. I was just wondering if the President could say he has standing and take it to court, rather than ignoring the law wholesale.

Which brings up an interesting point... if Congress passes a law restricting the President and Executive branch from a specific action, and the President responds by doing so anyways, who would have standing to rectify this situation?

(It's somewhat similar to the case where the courts ruled against Andrew Jackson and he said, "Well screw you" and he did it anyways. Except there the Executive were not following the check of the judiciary.)

[FromWayDowntown]

Not the courts, but doesn't DOJ do this most of the time?

Sure, executive agencies offer advisory opinions in some instances. But that doesn't get us anywhere in ElNono's hypothetical and Wild Cobra's retorts to it because executive agencies like DOJ are Article II actors and not Article III courts.

[LnGrrrR]

If there was a case, he might -- though I have some doubts about the President's ability to establish legal standing absent a wild hypothetical in which the Executive branch enforces the written law, in which the President himself goes out to violate the law and be deprived of the right the law attempts to secure for having violated the law, and then challenges the constitutionality of the law via a lawsuit.

Again, however, the problem is that there ISN'T A CASE OR CONTROVERSY!!!

A purely academic disagreement between the branches about the constitutionality of an act of one with respect to the other doesn't create a case or a controversy.


Let's give the example of Nixon's downfall and the subsequent FISA law. If the Executive just ignored FISA, as in, say, wiretapping, and those wiretapping results were kept secret from the public, how could the FISA law actually bind the President as it is meant to? Who would have standing to back up the law binding the President from these certain actions?

(Note: I'm asking in a "I really don't know" sort of way, rather than a "trying to trick you" sort of way. :)

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, executive agencies offer advisory opinions in some instances. But that doesn't get us anywhere in ElNono's hypothetical and Wild Cobra's retorts to it because executive agencies like DOJ are Article II actors and not Article III courts.

Yes, I know. Just getting some clarification.

[ElNono]

I was under the impression that any civilian could challenge the constitutionality of a law once enacted in a court of law, including members of any of the government branches.

[FromWayDowntown]

I was under the impression that any civilian could challenge the constitutionality of a law once enacted in a court of law, including members of any of the government branches.

That's a wrong impression.

A civilian who has actually been adversely affected by a law -- for instance, by being arrested for violating it, or by losing property because of it, or by having a constitutional right clearly deprived becuase of it -- has an ability to challenge the law's constitutionality on that basis. But absent some sort of adverse impact to the person based on the law's application, there is no case or controversy to support a judicial resolution of the constitutional question.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. I was just wondering if the President could say he has standing and take it to court, rather than ignoring the law wholesale.I don't think he should have to specify it. The fact he gives reason to ignore the statute passed tells me just that anyway. I think if he points out he has such legal standing, there could be a push to take it to the courts. A waste of time in my opinion. No need to trap oneself into wasting time.

Which brings up an interesting point... if Congress passes a law restricting the President and Executive branch from a specific action, and the President responds by doing so anyways, who would have standing to rectify this situation?
Seems to me that the fact signing statements have been happening like this for so many years, the precedent is set. The president need not take it to the courts, and congress knows they would lose if they did.

(It's somewhat similar to the case where the courts ruled against Andrew Jackson and he said, "Well screw you" and he did it anyways. Except there the Executive were not following the check of the judiciary.)
Well, I'm not familiar with that, and didn't find it on a quick search. I'd be curious to see it. Have a link?

[FromWayDowntown]

Let's give the example of Nixon's downfall and the subsequent FISA law. If the Executive just ignored FISA, as in, say, wiretapping, and those wiretapping results were kept secret from the public, how could the FISA law actually bind the President as it is meant to? Who would have standing to back up the law binding the President from these certain actions?

(Note: I'm asking in a "I really don't know" sort of way, rather than a "trying to trick you" sort of way. :)

Without being able to prove that the law deprived you of a constitutional right, nobody.

In fact, almost all of the FISA litigation that arose during the waning years of the Bush presidency was dismissed because the individuals who brought claims were unable to establish that they had standing.

[Wild Cobra]

Although it not a court decision, the opinion is probably valid. Consider this:

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm), November 3, 1993.

[ElNono]

That's a wrong impression.

A civilian who has actually been adversely affected by a law -- for instance, by being arrested for violating it, or by losing property because of it, or by having a constitutional right clearly deprived becuase of it -- has an ability to challenge the law's constitutionality on that basis. But absent some sort of adverse impact to the person based on the law's application, there is no case or controversy to support a judicial resolution of the constitutional question.

Thanks for the clarification. But wouldn't the executive be 'adversely affected by a law' in the hypothetical case we are talking about?

Furthermore, I want to clarify that I'm not the one that brought up this hypothetical. This whole theory of Congress passing bullshit laws with supermajority came from conservatives here when there was the possibility that the Democrats could have full control of Congress when Bush was still president.

[Wild Cobra]

I found an instance where signing statements were tested in court. With the passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act, President Reagan issued a signing statement (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38157). Within it, he said this:


In signing this bill, I am mindful of the serious constitutional questions raised by some of its provisions. The bill assigns a significant role to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General in calculating the budget estimates that trigger the operative provisions of the bill. Under the system of separated powers established by the Constitution, however, executive functions may only be performed by officers in the executive branch. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General are agents of Congress, not officers in the executive branch. The bill itself recognizes this problem and provides procedures for testing the constitutionality of the dubious provisions. The bill also provides a constitutionally valid alternative mechanism should the role of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General be struck down. It is my hope that these outstanding constitutional questions can be promptly resolved.

The case was tested in court as Bowsher_v._Synar (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=714)

From Wiki:


Facts

Under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, allowable deficit levels were calculated with an eye to eliminating the federal deficit. If the budget exceeded the allowable deficit, across-the-board cuts were required. Directors of the OMB and CBO were required to report to the Comptroller General regarding their recommendations for how much must be cut. The Comptroller General then evaluated these reports, made his own conclusion, and made a recommendation to the President, who was then required to issue an order effecting the reductions required by the Comptroller General unless Congress made the required cuts in other ways within a specified amount of time. The Comptroller General is nominated by the President from a list of three people recommended by the presiding officers of the House and Senate. He is removable only by impeachment or a joint resolution of Congress (which requires majority votes in both houses and is subject to the veto). Congress can give a number of reasons for this removal, including “inefficiency,” “neglect of duty,” or “malfeasance.”

Holding

The Congress cannot control the execution of its laws; since it doesn’t possess this power, it can’t delegate it to its agents. The CG is an agent of the Legislature because Congress can remove him by a process other than impeachment. The CG exercises executive power. Thus, the Act is unconstitutional.

Reasoning

(1)Definition of “executive power.” The CG’s function under the Act is the “very essence” of execution of the laws since (1) it entails interpreting the Act to determine precisely what kind of budgetary calculations are required and (2) the CG commands the President to carry out, without variation, the CG’s directive regarding the budget resolutions. Interpreting a law enacted by Congress is the “very essence” of executions of the laws. Once Congress passes legislation, it can only influence its execution by passing new laws or through impeachment.
(2)Impeachment. The Constitution only explicitly provides Congress the power to remove executive officers by impeachment. Also, the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected language that would have permitted impeachment for “maladministration,” with Madison arguing that “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” Thus, Congress can only remove a member of the executive branch through impeachment.

[jman3000]

Just depends if you have standing. That's relevenat to almost all things pertaining to the courts.

[LnGrrrR]

Without being able to prove that the law deprived you of a constitutional right, nobody.

In fact, almost all of the FISA litigation that arose during the waning years of the Bush presidency was dismissed because the individuals who brought claims were unable to establish that they had standing.

Hm... interesting loophole there. Makes whistleblowers even MORE important.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, I'm not familiar with that, and didn't find it on a quick search. I'd be curious to see it. Have a link?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

About halfway down....

"The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.

In 1830, just a year after taking office, Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation called the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress. It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. Those wishing to remain in the east would become citizens of their home state. This act affected not only the southeastern nations, but many others further north. The removal was supposed to be voluntary and peaceful, and it was that way for the tribes that agreed to the conditions. But the southeastern nations resisted, and Jackson forced them to leave."

Andrew Jackson was probably the most racist President we've ever had.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, thanks for finding out that court case. Pretty interesting stuff :D

[Wild Cobra]

"The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.
This is interesting as well, but how did he refuse to enforce the law? Did he go in and forcefully remove the missionaries? Without seeing the law and the verbatim ruling, I don't see it as the courts saying the Cherokee had the right to stay, just the the missionaries had the right to stay with the Cherokee. The self-governing could have meant they had the right to protect the missionaries. The article still leaves open speculation of the truth.

What am I missing?

[Wild Cobra]

How about it Winehole. From post #23:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/SASpursForumSigningStatementpost23.jpg

Anyone else up to the challenge of your favorite (most hated) President Bush Signing Statement?

[FromWayDowntown]

Anyone else up to the challenge of your favorite (most hated) President Bush Signing Statement?

I've already dealt with my view of that:


What's true of the Bush practice is this: he (or Cheney) found a group of lawyers who argued rabidly for unprecedented expansions of Presidential power in times of "war," however vaguely defined, and used signing statements to make clear that he would keep his own counsel as to the extent to which he would feel himself bound constitutionally. As we've seen over time, the objective correctness of that counsel is questionable and as cases and controversies arise and make their way through the federal courts, at least some of what Bush's advisors told him about his constitutional powers is being shot down.

I don't have any particular problem with the use of signing statements or with any particular signing statement itself; my problem has always been the arguments that underlie some of Bush's signing statements. They strike me as making extreme leaps towards creating an imperial presidency that is largely unresponsive to Congress whenever it chooses to be. That's decidedly contrary to my understanding of the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. And I think, over time, that some of that power grab will be repudiated by Courts (to an extent, it already has been in a few instances). Thus, the signing statement itself is little more than a public declaration of the argument, which strikes me as unfounded and insupportable to a very large extent.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have any particular problem with the use of signing statements or with any particular signing statement itself; my problem has always been the arguments that underlie some of Bush's signing statements. They strike me as making extreme leaps towards creating an imperial presidency that is largely unresponsive to Congress whenever it chooses to be. That's decidedly contrary to my understanding of the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. And I think, over time, that some of that power grab will be repudiated by Courts (to an extent, it already has been in a few instances). Thus, the signing statement itself is little more than a public declaration of the argument, which strikes me as unfounded and insupportable to a very large extent.
Which one.

Over and over, I hear the what the media says and liberals drink the Kool-Aid.

Please pick a signing statement and show me what's wrong. The link is there with the full text of all of them.

[LnGrrrR]

Which one.

Over and over, I hear the what the media says and liberals drink the Kool-Aid.

Please pick a signing statement and show me what's wrong. The link is there with the full text of all of them.

WC, we've already been over this. FWDT just said that it's not signing statements, in and of themselves, that he has a problem with. It is the general idea of this unitary executive theory, coupled with the signing statements, that he is wary of.

And we've already discussed the few ones where Bush has said he won't follow the law as written if he thinks it interferes with his powers, and debated that already.

[FromWayDowntown]

Which one.

Over and over, I hear the what the media says and liberals drink the Kool-Aid.

Please pick a signing statement and show me what's wrong. The link is there with the full text of all of them.

Did you even read my post? In any event, thanks for giving me the chance to quote myself again:


I don't have any particular problem with the use of signing statements or with any particular signing statement itself.

Solid job, though, of avoiding the argument.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you even read my post? In any event, thanks for giving me the chance to quote myself again:

I don't have any particular problem with the use of signing statements or with any particular signing statement itself.
Solid job, though, of avoiding the argument.
Except you went on to say:
my problem has always been the arguments that underlie some of Bush's signing statements. They strike me as making extreme leaps towards creating an imperial presidency that is largely unresponsive to Congress whenever it chooses to be.Can you show me please?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, we've already been over this. FWDT just said that it's not signing statements, in and of themselves, that he has a problem with. It is the general idea of this unitary executive theory, coupled with the signing statements, that he is wary of.

And we've already discussed the few ones where Bush has said he won't follow the law as written if he thinks it interferes with his powers, and debated that already.
And I would like to see the text of which signing statements liberals have their panties in a wad over. Is that asking to much?

Such a general statement doesn't work for me because that's exactly how the liberal media tells liberals to react. Sorry for being an ass on the issue, I just want to see the context that warrants such a concern. Not some pundits spin.

[FromWayDowntown]

Except you went on to say:Can you show me please?

The arguments underlying the signing statements AREN'T IN THE SIGNING STATEMENTS. I think you either misapprehend the arguments of those who disliked the Bush signing statement policy -- which I still think has nothing to do with the signing statement itself and everything to do with the legal arguments that the signing statements foretold -- or you are listening to people who don't have any idea what they're talking about.

As to the arguments that I disagree with, are you really wanting me to recap the 8 years of unprecedented arguments from Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo about the scope of Article II power and willful indifference to the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution? Those aren't in any signing statement; but like I've said, the problem isn't the signing statement itself.

[Wild Cobra]

As to the arguments that I disagree with, are you really wanting me to recap the 8 years of unprecedented arguments from Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo about the scope of Article II power and willful indifference to the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution? Those aren't in any signing statement; but like I've said, the problem isn't the signing statement itself.
I'm simply looking for what everyone used to cry about in President Bush's signing statements. I guess nobody has a valid answer, and must of been complaining about them just to be partisan hacks.

Are there any valid criticisms over his signing statements. I don't think so, and that's what I'm looking for.

[Winehole23]

You're being willfully obtuse, or you still haven read FWD's repeated and rather clear explanation. Or, having read it, you have failed to understand it.

If you disagree with FWD, can you point to something that he said, and explain your disagreement with it. It looks like you're just ignoring him, WC.

[Wild Cobra]

You're being willfully obtuse, or you still haven read FWD's repeated and rather clear explanation. Or, having read it, you have failed to understand it.

If you disagree with FWD, can you point to something that he said, and explain your disagreement with it. It looks like you're just ignoring him, WC.
I agree with him. I remember people constantly complaining about them, but with no factual reasons. I am now asking specifics as to the why, especially since so many people said they were ignoring law, illegal, etc. I was just searching old threads and found this oldie:

Signing statements are only wrong if Bush does them. Got to remember that.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm simply looking for what everyone used to cry about in President Bush's signing statements. I guess nobody has a valid answer, and must of been complaining about them just to be partisan hacks.

Are there any valid criticisms over his signing statements. I don't think so, and that's what I'm looking for.

Again, I think the thing that was most troubling about Bush's signing statements was the recitation of an intent to defy laws to the extent that he deemed them unconstitutional -- which is understandable -- COUPLED with the arguments that his administration was making about what laws or portions thereof were unconstitutional.

You can't isolate one from the other, no matter how much you try to do so to make whatever point it is you're grasping to make in this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, I think the thing that was most troubling about Bush's signing statements was the recitation of an intent to defy laws to the extent that he deemed them unconstitutional -- which is understandable -- COUPLED with the arguments that his administration was making about what laws or portions thereof were unconstitutional.
Why is that troubling. I don't get it. You disagree they were unconstitutional?

You can't isolate one from the other, no matter how much you try to do so to make whatever point it is you're grasping to make in this thread.
Which came first. The intent to defy the law, or the realization that the new law was in violation of Article II powers? Does it matter?

All I'm looking for is the example of a wrong signing statement of that type. Does one exist or not? Is there one that he says he is not required to follow one that supersedes his article II powers that he's wrong about?

[FromWayDowntown]

Why is that troubling. I don't get it. You disagree they were unconstitutional?

It's not just me that thinks that the Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo contentions about the scope of Article II power were both unprecedented and irreconcilable against the Constitution. Are you wholly unaware of the widespread concerns that have been voiced about those arguments? Are you trying to somehow be coy about this? Are you oblivious to the fact that there has been a raging debate for the better part of a decade about the notions of presidential power advanced by the Bush White House?


Which came first. The intent to defy the law, or the realization that the new law was in violation of Article II powers? Does it matter?

The argument (whether made known to the world or not), to my way of thinking, precedes the signing statement. But I don't think that really matters. What matters is that the Bush White House committed itself to finding ways to sidestep legislative oversight and to vest the executive with unprecedented and, they claim, uncontestable powers. They could have devised those in light of the law and they could have devised them as questions about the law arose. The ultimate trobling point, however, is that the Bush administration had little regard for the checks and balances afforded to Congress, did all it could to convince itself that it could defy those checks and balances, and manifested an intent to do just that via signing statements that expressed no intention to comply with laws or portions thereof that the Administration believed itself to be exempt from -- under its own arguments about the scope of Article II power.


All I'm looking for is the example of a wrong signing statement of that type. Does one exist or not? Is there one that he says he is not required to follow one that supersedes his article II powers that he's wrong about?

Again, I don't think you're going to find that signing statement as a smoking gun because the signing statements themselves are rather broadly worded and quite non-specific. What's always been problematic is the arguments that defined what the President would or would not comply with -- not the broad statements themselves. If you're going to continue ignoring that truth, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

There's absolutely no point to your obtuseness.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not just me that thinks that the Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo contentions about the scope of Article II power were both unprecedented and irreconcilable against the Constitution. Are you wholly unaware of the widespread concerns that have been voiced about those arguments?
I'm looking for facts. Not opinion. Have any?

Are you trying to somehow be coy about this?
No. I'm looking for real answers. You don't have what I'm looking for apparently. You just repeat talking points.

Are you oblivious to the fact that there has been a raging debate for the better part of a decade about the notions of presidential power advanced by the Bush White House?

Yes, but I have never seen any facts to support the contentions.


The argument (whether made known to the world or not), to my way of thinking, precedes the signing statement. But I don't think that really matters. What matters is that the Bush White House committed itself to finding ways to sidestep legislative oversight and to vest the executive with unprecedented and, they claim, uncontestable powers.
That's not how I read the signing statemnts I have read. Have an example of that by chance, or are you repeating talking points and propaganda again?

They could have devised those in light of the law and they could have devised them as questions about the law arose. The ultimate trobling point, however, is that the Bush administration had little regard for the checks and balances afforded to Congress, did all it could to convince itself that it could defy those checks and balances, and manifested an intent to do just that via signing statements that expressed no intention to comply with laws or portions thereof that the Administration believed itself to be exempt from -- under its own arguments about the scope of Article II power.

As I understand, you disagree with the Article II claim of some instances. Why then are none of these concerns being brought to Article III players?


Again, I don't think you're going to find that signing statement as a smoking gun because the signing statements themselves are rather broadly worded and quite non-specific.
OK, let me get this right. You are making shit up then about what the intent is. Right?

What's always been problematic is the arguments that defined what the President would or would not comply with -- not the broad statements themselves. If you're going to continue ignoring that truth, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

Still, no example. Just words. Please find me an example and explain how the above concerns apply.


There's absolutely no point to your obtuseness.
I guess I need that smoking gun. Seems to me you are the obtuse one. I see the signing statements as a clear indication that he will not feel obligated to allow congress to superseded Article II powers. I see you as trying to read into the generalities things not in existence. To me, the facts are clear. The signing statements assure the separation of powers are maintained.

[LnGrrrR]

WC,

Sometimes there is no smoking gun. Let's look at the law for alcohol consumption, for instance. Are you extremely more mature upon the day you hit age 21, as opposed to the day before? Of course not.

FWDT and myself are stating that it's not one obvious smoking gun. Merely, it is shady when combined with certain legal theories as well as practices. Context is everything.

If I were to provide a 'smoking gun' for you, it would be Yoo's theory that the President is able to torture the child of someone who is withholding information. But it's that sort of belief that underlies some of these signing statements. The general belief that the President can not be overruled on his powers during 'emergencies' or wartime.

[Wild Cobra]

WC,

Sometimes there is no smoking gun. Let's look at the law for alcohol consumption, for instance. Are you extremely more mature upon the day you hit age 21, as opposed to the day before? Of course not.

FWDT and myself are stating that it's not one obvious smoking gun. Merely, it is shady when combined with certain legal theories as well as practices. Context is everything.

If I were to provide a 'smoking gun' for you, it would be Yoo's theory that the President is able to torture the child of someone who is withholding information. But it's that sort of belief that underlies some of these signing statements. The general belief that the President can not be overruled on his powers during 'emergencies' or wartime.
It's OK, I understand. Nobody can explain why they say president Bush's signing statements were criticized other than for flimsy reasons. You all just played along as partisan hacks as he was being criticized for maintaining his Article II powers.

[Winehole23]

So then WC, you admit you don't appreciate how legal opinions from the OLC and DOJ gave GWB's signing statements an import they never had before, as well as queering the established balance between the branches by construing the President's actions as unreviewable.

[LnGrrrR]

It's OK, I understand. Nobody can explain why they say president Bush's signing statements were criticized other than for flimsy reasons. You all just played along as partisan hacks as he was being criticized for maintaining his Article II powers.

WC, you're a putz.

Tell me, do you agree with THIS legal theory? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm)

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Do you believe that the President could do such a thing? That it is within his rights under the Constitution, if he thought it safe for the nation?

[Wild Cobra]

So then WC, you admit you don't appreciate how legal opinions from the OLC and DOJ gave GWB's signing statements an import they never had before, as well as queering the established balance between the branches by construing the President's actions as unreviewable.
Huh?

I agree with what President Bush and President Obama have done with signing statements. Telling congress they stepped over the line.

When president Bush did it, all the liberals complained. Now that President Obama has done the same thing, no one is willing to give me factual specifics of how President Bush was wrong with his signing statements.

Are you all taking your criticism back? Are you all saying you were wrong?

I am not saying the President's actions are unreviewable I want someone to review a signing statement you think is wrong. Go ahead. Find one that you complained about before, and tell me how it's wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

Huh?

I agree with what President Bush and President Obama have done with signing statements. Telling congress they stepped over the line.

When president Bush did it, all the liberals complained. Now that President Obama has done the same thing, no one is willing to give me factual specifics of how President Bush was wrong with his signing statements.

Are you all taking your criticism back? Are you all saying you were wrong?

I am not saying the President's actions are unreviewable I want someone to review a signing statement you think is wrong. Go ahead. Find one that you complained about before, and tell me how it's wrong.

Liberals aren't complaining about the signing statements, in and of themselves. They are complaining about a legal theory in which the President gives himself authority to ignore certain laws in long-term "emergencies". In fact, we already had this discussion upthread. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it.

[Wild Cobra]

Liberals aren't complaining about the signing statements, in and of themselves. They are complaining about a legal theory in which the President gives himself authority to ignore certain laws in long-term "emergencies". In fact, we already had this discussion upthread. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it.
Yes, I heard the repeated talking points. You are repeating what they want lemmings like you to say.

Please...

Show me the signing statement that supports that contention!

[coyotes_geek]

Liberals aren't complaining about the signing statements, in and of themselves. They are complaining about a legal theory in which the President gives himself authority to ignore certain laws in long-term "emergencies". In fact, we already had this discussion upthread. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it.

Obama circumvented bankruptcy laws and the TARP legislation when he used TARP funds to bail out the auto industry. Are liberals complaining over his handling of that situation? If they are, I haven't seen it.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama circumvented bankruptcy laws and the TARP legislation when he used TARP funds to bail out the auto industry. Are liberals complaining over his handling of that situation? If they are, I haven't seen it.
I don't think liberals care about the law. The seem to believe the end justifies the means. That's why they cry about President Bush's legal use of signing statements and applaud the illegal bailouts.

[Winehole23]

TARP makes eyes glaze over in this forum. Pity.

[Wild Cobra]

TARP makes eyes glaze over in this forum. Pity.
I at least find you one of the more reasonable people here.

How about it. Can you find one of President Bush's signing statements that affirm your position?

President Bush's 159 signing statements (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm)

[coyotes_geek]

TARP makes eyes glaze over in this forum. Pity.

It is. Democrats and Republicans join hand in hand to conspire against the American taxpayer by forcing them to fund the largest corporate welfare program in history and apparently no one cares.

[Winehole23]

What people object to is boilerplate like this which, proceeding on the basis of a novel and untested theory of executive power, gives the President grounds to disregard Congress based on the President's own determination of Constitutionality, as well as self-determined necessity and expediency.


The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get it. What's the beef about the president saying that the executive branch's actions cannot be dictated by congress?

Would have been nice if you linked the whole signing statement:

President's Statement on H.R. 199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005" (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/03/print/20060309-8.html)

Records of the Administration of George W. Bush, 2006 / Mar. 9, page 425 (http://www.coherentbabble.com/Statements/SShr3199s2271.pdf)

Complete text:
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 9, 2006.

Maybe you should read section 756. I've looked for it, and haven't found it yet. At least know what you're complaining about.

[Wild Cobra]

What people object to is boilerplate like this which, proceeding on the basis of a novel and untested theory of executive power, gives the President grounds to disregard Congress based on the President's own determination of Constitutionality, as well as self-determined necessity and expediency.
What about this from the Supreme Court dicision, the summary from wiki:
Reasoning

(1)Definition of “executive power.” The CG’s function under the Act is the “very essence” of execution of the laws since (1) it entails interpreting the Act to determine precisely what kind of budgetary calculations are required and (2) the CG commands the President to carry out, without variation, the CG’s directive regarding the budget resolutions. Interpreting a law enacted by Congress is the “very essence” of executions of the laws. Once Congress passes legislation, it can only influence its execution by passing new laws or through impeachment.
(2)Impeachment. The Constitution only explicitly provides Congress the power to remove executive officers by impeachment. Also, the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected language that would have permitted impeachment for “maladministration,” with Madison arguing that “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” Thus, Congress can only remove a member of the executive branch through impeachment.
I'd say it was well tested!

Here is the case, Bowsher v. Synar (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=714). Part of the majority opinion:
The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in the supervision of officers charged with the execution of the laws it enacts. The President appoints "Officers of the United States" with the "Advice and Consent of [478 U.S. 714, 723] the Senate . . . ." Art. II. 2. Once the appointment has been made and confirmed, however, the Constitution explicitly provides for removal of Officers of the United States by Congress only upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. An impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate can rest only on "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Art. II, 4. A direct congressional role in the removal of officers charged with the execution of the laws beyond this limited one is inconsistent with separation of powers.

[Winehole23]

What about this from the Supreme Court dicision, the summary from wiki:
I'd say it was well tested!

Here is the case, Bowsher v. Synar (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=714). Part of the majority opinion:We're not talking about impeachment here. The issue is the President determining Constitutionality unreviewably, and ignoring stipulations of law at whim.

[LnGrrrR]

Obama circumvented bankruptcy laws and the TARP legislation when he used TARP funds to bail out the auto industry. Are liberals complaining over his handling of that situation? If they are, I haven't seen it.

I think you'll find that many liberals were complaining about the bank bailout in general. I will agree that I haven't seen many complain about the TARP fund specifically. Then again, I haven't seen many conservatives complain about that specific item either. I agree it's wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, I heard the repeated talking points. You are repeating what they want lemmings like you to say.

Please...

Show me the signing statement that supports that contention!

I will ask again. Do you agree with the legal theory that comes to conclusions like this?

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Do you agree or disagree that the President is able to do such a thing?

[Wild Cobra]

We're not talking about impeachment here. The issue is the President determining Constitutionality unreviewably, and ignoring stipulations of law at whim.
So what's your beef?

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action,
The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in the supervision of officers charged with the execution of the laws it enacts.

[Winehole23]

Reread the thread. It's stated clearly, by many people, many times.

[Wild Cobra]

I will ask again. Do you agree with THE legal theory that comes to conclusions like this?

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Do you agree or disagree that the President is able to do such a thing?
No, I don't agree with torture. That is clearly cruel and unusual punishment and clearly unconstitutional. We are not talking about the president violating the constitution. We are talking about the president not being submissive to congress.

[Wild Cobra]

Reread the thread. It's stated clearly, by many people, many times.
I'm sorry, I don't understand liberal code words. I need a clear factual example.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I don't agree with torture. That is clearly cruel and unusual punishment and clearly unconstitutional. We are not talking about the president violating the constitution. We are talking about the president not being submissive to congress.

But that's our WHOLE POINT.

John Yoo, the main man behind the unified executive theory, STATED IN THE INTERVIEW ABOVE, that he could see a reason/justification for the President being allowed to do that LEGALLY.

Now, how would he make such a bold proclamation, you ask? Under the idea that the president, in a wartime or emergency situation, is allowed GREAT leverage in his actions.

Let me pose a hypothetical question to you: If Congress signed a bill explicity stating that a President could not torture a child, could the President say that was an infringement of his Article II powers? Because that is EXACTLY what John Yoo is claiming.

[coyotes_geek]

I think you'll find that many liberals were complaining about the bank bailout in general. I will agree that I haven't seen many complain about the TARP fund specifically. Then again, I haven't seen many conservatives complain about that specific item either. I agree it's wrong.

I've seen liberals speak out against TARP. I haven't seen any liberals speak out against Obama circumventing the law by using TARP funds to bailout GM & Chrysler. If the issue for liberals truly is that a president, any president, should not be allowed to circumvent the law then they should speak up here, no matter whether they like that particular law or not. Otherwise it looks like they're playing that "okay for my guy, not okay for your guy" game that infests American politics these days.

[LnGrrrR]

I've seen liberals speak out against TARP. I haven't seen any liberals speak out against Obama circumventing the law by using TARP funds to bailout GM & Chrysler. If the issue for liberals truly is that a president, any president, should not be allowed to circumvent the law then they should speak up here, no matter whether they like that particular law or not. Otherwise it looks like they're playing that "okay for my guy, not okay for your guy" game that infests American politics these days.

If it makes you feel any better, as a 'liberaltarian', I'll denounce TARP and the use of TARP for car companies. :D

[coyotes_geek]

If it makes you feel any better, as a 'liberaltarian', I'll denounce TARP and the use of TARP for car companies. :D

Not sure how exactly, but we ended up agreeing on something. :toast

[sam1617]

Not sure how exactly, but we ended up agreeing on something. :toast

It only took the end of the American way of life and government to make ya'll agree :D

[Wild Cobra]

But that's our WHOLE POINT.

John Yoo, the main man behind the unified executive theory, STATED IN THE INTERVIEW ABOVE, that he could see a reason/justification for the President being allowed to do that LEGALLY.

Now, how would he make such a bold proclamation, you ask? Under the idea that the president, in a wartime or emergency situation, is allowed GREAT leverage in his actions.

Let me pose a hypothetical question to you: If Congress signed a bill explicity stating that a President could not torture a child, could the President say that was an infringement of his Article II powers? Because that is EXACTLY what John Yoo is claiming.
Now you're going off the deep end. First off, the Unified Executive Theory has been discussed by the founding fathers, and supported by the Supreme court. Yoo is hardly "the man behind" the theory.

I cannot see the president saying he has the authority to torture a child, but he still could state that congress has no power to dictate his actions.

I don't give a damn what John Yoo says in a debate that he may have misspoken in. Funny how I can find hundreds of the same lines repeated, but not what is said before or after. Have the debate in full context that you care to share? I didn't think so.

Why are you being a lemming and repeating what the bloggers tell you to repeat? Have a link for the document that Yoo authored? Wouldn't that be important? I looked for it, and couldn't find a searchable format.

Aug 1, 2002 - Department of Justice memo to White House Counsel stating that interrogation methods used on al Qaeda prisoners comply with international treaties prohibiting torture (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/020801.pdf)

I'm printing these six pages now, and will read it.

[Wild Cobra]

Here we go, an HTML extract of the graphical format. Some errors in computer OCR:

HTML recreation of Yoo Memo (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:HIxH0LNr3YIJ:www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/020801.pdf)

[LnGrrrR]

Now you're going off the deep end. First off, the Unified Executive Theory has been discussed by the founding fathers, and supported by the Supreme court. Yoo is hardly "the man behind" the theory.

There's a difference in the application of the theory. John Yoo was certainly the man willing to push it to its strongest position in recent memory. It's akin to the position that Nixon took... "I'm the President, so it's not illegal."


I cannot see the president saying he has the authority to torture a child, but he still could state that congress has no power to dictate his actions.

I don't care if you can 'see' it or not. The question was hypothetical, and simple. Does the President have the right to state he can torture a child, even if Congress passes a law banning it? Does the President have the right to say it infringes upon his ability as Commander in Chief during times of war, or not? It's a relatively simple yes or no question.


I don't give a damn what John Yoo says in a debate that he may have misspoken in. Funny how I can find hundreds of the same lines repeated, but not what is said before or after. Have the debate in full context that you care to share? I didn't think so.

Really? You don't give a damn, even though John Yoo was the main legal mind behind the legal advisories given to Bush? Did you go to the link above and listen to the audio? Here's another link, with a longer passage for context: http://rwor.org/a/026/torture-victims-confront-advocate.htm


Why are you being a lemming and repeating what the bloggers tell you to repeat? Have a link for the document that Yoo authored? Wouldn't that be important? I looked for it, and couldn't find a searchable format.

Aug 1, 2002 - Department of Justice memo to White House Counsel stating that interrogation methods used on al Qaeda prisoners comply with international treaties prohibiting torture (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/020801.pdf)

I'm printing these six pages now, and will read it.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't you saying that Sotomayer wasn't a good candidate because of all the opinions she had that were reversed? Let's look at wikipedia for works authored by Yoo...

September 25, 2001 Memorandum (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoforeignsurveillanceact09252001.pdf) for David S. Kris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Kris), Associate Deputy Attorney General, "Re: Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change 'Purpose' Standard for Searches" (signed by John C. Yoo). Claims the US Federal Government's "right to self defense" authorized warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ). Repudiated.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-repud2009-26)

October 23, 2001 Memorandum (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf) for Alberto Gonzales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales) and William J. Haynes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Haynes), "Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States" (signed by John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Delahunty)). Claims the U.S. military can ignore several Constitutional provisions: the Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ), the Takings Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takings_Clause), and the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) .[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-eff4th2009-27)Repudiated.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-repud2008-28)

November 15, 2001 Memorandum (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoabmtreaty11152001.pdf) for John B. Bellinger III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Bellinger_III), "Re: Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty" (signed by John C. Yoo and Robert Delahunty). Claims that Bush could suspend any provisions he wanted in the ABM Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABM_Treaty) with the USSR/Russia, or any other treaty, without even telling the Senate or other states-parties. Repudiated.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-repud2009-26)

January 22, 2002 Memorandum (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee12202mem.pdf) for Alberto Gonzales and William J. Haynes, "Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees" (signed by Jay S. Bybee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_S._Bybee)). Repudiated.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-repud2009-26)

February 8, 2002 Memorandum ("OLC 62") for William J. Haynes, "Re: (Classified Matter)", by John C. Yoo. Described in court declaration as "prepared in response to a request for OLC views regarding the legality of certain hypothetical activities". ACLU says it "proposes that FISA does not govern intelligence surveillance for mational security purposes because FISA does not include a clear statement of intent to do so." Repudiated.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-repud2009-26)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-BradburyDecl-31)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-32)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-acluchart-25)

Etc etc.

Read the above cases. If you're a conservative, how could you agree with a legal theory that nearly always is willing to vest greater power in the executive?

There's no need to apologize for John Yoo. He takes a theory, and then games the system to try to find all the ways to break it. He's a dirtbag.

[LnGrrrR]

Here we go, an HTML extract of the graphical format. Some errors in computer OCR:

HTML recreation of Yoo Memo (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:HIxH0LNr3YIJ:www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/020801.pdf)

This has a great example of the bad faith in which Yoo argues. From your link:

"As we have explained elsewhere, in order to violate the statute a defendant must have specific intention to inflict severe pain or suffering – in other words, "the infliction of such pain must be the defendant's precise objective." See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from: Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S. C. §§ 2340-2340A at 3 (August 1, 2002)."

See what he does there? He twists the wording around. It goes from "having a specific intent to inflict pain" to "the infliction of pain must be the defendant's precise objective". The two things are NOT the same. The first would not allow enhanced interrogation, the second would. (How you ask? Let's assume the purpose of enhanced interrogation is to cause severe pain and/or suffering in order to elicit information. Using the first term, this would be outlawed, as it would indicate a specific intention to inflict severe pain or suffering. However, using the second term, it would be allowed, because the precise objective is to elicit information, and not severe pain and suffering.)

This, among other reasons, is why that memo was repudiated:

^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-2) d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-3) e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-4) f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-5) g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-6) h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-7) i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-8) "Memorandum regarding status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Acts of September 11, 2001" (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf) (PDF). US Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Department_of_Justice) Office of Legal Counsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Legal_Counsel). 2009-01-15. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-03-02.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm

[Wild Cobra]

This has a great example of the bad faith in which Yoo argues. From your link:

"As we have explained elsewhere, in order to violate the statute a defendant must have specific intention to inflict severe pain or suffering – in other words, "the infliction of such pain must be the defendant's precise objective." See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from: Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S. C. §§ 2340-2340A at 3 (August 1, 2002)."

See what he does there? He twists the wording around. It goes from "having a specific intent to inflict pain" to "the infliction of pain must be the defendant's precise objective". The two things are NOT the same. The first would not allow enhanced interrogation, the second would. (How you ask? Let's assume the purpose of enhanced interrogation is to cause severe pain and/or suffering in order to elicit information. Using the first term, this would be outlawed, as it would indicate a specific intention to inflict severe pain or suffering. However, using the second term, it would be allowed, because the precise objective is to elicit information, and not severe pain and suffering.)

This, among other reasons, is why that memo was repudiated:

^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-2) d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-3) e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-4) f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-5) g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-6) h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-7) i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_ref-repud2009_26-8) "Memorandum regarding status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Acts of September 11, 2001" (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf) (PDF). US Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Department_of_Justice) Office of Legal Counsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Legal_Counsel). 2009-01-15. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-03-02.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm


I really don't care what his opinion is. I don't like it either. I am not impressed with you side stepping the signing statement argument.

Have you yet come up with a signing statement that is other than President Bush saying he will not let congress dictate his Article II powers?

I'm still waiting...

Arguing what Article II powers are can be a different subject.

[Winehole23]

You may be missing the abstraction at issue, WC.

Most of the objections relate to the authority relied upon -- despite your assertion that it's well established, the theory of a unitary executive is a clear novelty -- rather than the substance of the signing statements themselves. The practice of signing statements is pretty well established. The main gripe is that Bush used them (some have said he overused them) to bolster new powers under a questionable theory that skews the balance between coequal branches of government.

[Wild Cobra]

You may be missing the abstraction at issue, WC.

Most of the objections relate to the authority relied upon -- despite your assertion that it's well established, the theory of a unitary executive is a clear novelty -- rather than the substance of the signing statements themselves. The practice of signing statements is pretty well established. The main gripe is that Bush used them (some have said he overused them) to bolster new powers under a questionable theory that skews the balance between coequal branches of government.
Then please, show me an example that supports that contention, or are you going to act like another liberal lemming, drinking the Kool-Aid, and repeating the talking points as told to?

Look it up yourself, and think for yourself please.

Please.... If what you say is true, then a such a signing statement exists.

[Winehole23]

You're still missing the meta-level here. I already pointed out the offending boilerplate. the words *unitary executive* appear throughout GWB's signing statements. These words have a denotation that goes beyond precedent.

You don't see how changing the underlying theory might changes the practice? Or how the signing statements themselves smuggled the underlying theory in, perhaps creating a faulty legal precedent?

Legitimate practices and legitimate pretexts can be used to create illegitimate power under novel interpretations of the case.

Additionally, Bush's repeated refusal to give information to Congress as required by statute breeches comity, the spirit of the law, and over time, may pose a risk to the balance between coordinate branches of government.

Just because there's no smoking gun doesn't make the policy sound, or refute the critics.

[Winehole23]

At any rate, if Obama relies on a different theory of executive power -- a big if, i might add -- then Obama's signing statements are not the same in their practical effect as Bush's.

If Obama starts asserting this unitary executive bullshit I'll be on his case about it too.

[Wild Cobra]

At any rate, if Obama relies on a different theory of executive power -- a big if, i might add -- then Obama's signing statements are not the same in their practical effect as Bush's.

If Obama starts asserting this unitary executive bullshit I'll be on his case about it too.
Just because he doesn't use those words. Did President Bush use those words in his signing statement? What is different about President Obama's second signing statement? He tell congress he will not play their game:

Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.
Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

[Winehole23]

The difference in verbiage is nontrivial even if they aim at similar effects IMO.

[LnGrrrR]

I really don't care what his opinion is. I don't like it either. I am not impressed with you side stepping the signing statement argument.

Have you yet come up with a signing statement that is other than President Bush saying he will not let congress dictate his Article II powers?

I'm still waiting...

Arguing what Article II powers are can be a different subject.

WC, show me where I, personally, have decried signing statements point blank.

In fact, SHOW ME ANY ARTICLE that decries signing statements, without specifically mentioning the idea that Bush has tried to lay claim to greater executive power IN GENERAL during his administration, with the wording of these signing statements being an EXAMPLE of that.

Many articles that mention signing statements also show how other Presidents have used them as well.

You're arguing a strawmen. Liberals aren't arguing the fact that Bush used signing statements. Reagan, Clinton and others have as well. They were arguing that some of the statements made during specific signing statements claimed the executive was immune to certain aspects of policy that reasonable people disagree is purely in the executive domain.

[LnGrrrR]

Then please, show me an example that supports that contention, or are you going to act like another liberal lemming, drinking the Kool-Aid, and repeating the talking points as told to?

Look it up yourself, and think for yourself please.

Please.... If what you say is true, then a such a signing statement exists.

Ok, you say you 'don't care' about John Yoo, when he's the very person who's come up with the theory that was used to approve of the legel memorandums that supported these signing statements! Can you not see why his view is important, as it helps to define the legal mindset that Bush et all were working from?

If you disagree with Yoo's theory of strong executive power, then many of the signing statements, and the ideology behind it, you would most likely disagree with as well.

Remember, just because the President declares something to be a province of the executive and executive alone, doesn't mean that it ipso facto is.

[LnGrrrR]

Finally, I would not be surprised at all if Obama runs with the "Executive Unitary" theory. He's shown himself to be no lover of sunshine or transparency, and he is all about amassing/keeping executive power.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, show me where I, personally, have decried signing statements point blank.
I can't. You seem to be arguing against their legal use when you don't like the president who used them.
In fact, SHOW ME ANY ARTICLE that decries signing statements, without specifically mentioning the idea that Bush has tried to lay claim to greater executive power IN GENERAL during his administration, with the wording of these signing statements being an EXAMPLE of that.I'll bet we could find statistics out there that show under the same circumstances, his usage was less than others. He had a congress trying to tie his wartime powers and he said no. If we eliminated all such instances since signing statements were used to protect Article II powers, I'm pretty sure the numbers would be different.
Many articles that mention signing statements also show how other Presidents have used them as well.
Exactly. How many were used to protect from a majority in congress that hated the president?
You're arguing a strawmen. Liberals aren't arguing the fact that Bush used signing statements. Reagan, Clinton and others have as well. They were arguing that some of the statements made during specific signing statements claimed the executive was immune to certain aspects of policy that reasonable people disagree is purely in the executive domain.OK, they are arguing the point then "that's not fair. I don't like it when they can legally be used to do what I don't like" Isn't that childish? Is the usage legal or not? Shouldn't that be the point?
Ok, you say you 'don't care' about John Yoo, when he's the very person who's come up with the theory that was used to approve of the legel memorandums that supported these signing statements! Can you not see why his view is important, as it helps to define the legal mindset that Bush et all were working from?No, he just followed others. Did you read the link I posted in Post #86 from the Clinton administration? Here is a small extract of THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm), November 3, 1993:
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.

Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it. Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Relatedly, a signing statement may put forward a "saving" construction of the bill, explaining that the President will construe it in a certain manner in order to avoid constitutional difficulties. See Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298 (D.C. Cir. 1993), at *11-*12 (Silberman, J., joined by Wald, J.) (citing two Presidential signing statements adopting "saving" construction of legislation limiting appointment power). This, too, is analogous to the Supreme Court's practice of construing statutes, if possible, to avoid holding them unconstitutional, or even to avoid deciding difficult constitutional questions.

More boldly still, the President may declare in a signing statement that a provision of the bill before him is flatly unconstitutional, and that he will refuse to enforce it. This species of statement merits separate discussion.(6)

In each of the last three Administrations, the Department of Justice has advised the President that the Constitution provides him with the authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.(7) This advice is, we believe, consistent with the views of the Framers.(8) Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional." Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2653 (1991) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).(9)

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect. Id. at * 11.
If you disagree with Yoo's theory of strong executive power, then many of the signing statements, and the ideology behind it, you would most likely disagree with as well.I disagree with some of the things I heard Yoo say. I won't say they are legally wrong, but yes, morally questionable.
Remember, just because the President declares something to be a province of the executive and executive alone, doesn't mean that it ipso facto is.I agree. That's why I am asking for an example otherwise. I know of none.

Again, have an example of a such a signing statement? That's what I was going to do. Show why the statement isn't improper. The point is clear and simple. Congress cannot have written laws enforced that hinder a president's Article II powers. Any layman should be able to understand that.

Finally, I would not be surprised at all if Obama runs with the "Executive Unitary" theory. He's shown himself to be no lover of sunshine or transparency, and he is all about amassing/keeping executive power.I think he will, however, I think he will do his best in confidential communications with congress telling them he doesn't want legislation that he has to do such. Being of the same mindset as him, I think congress will be careful of such legislation in the future.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, I heard the repeated talking points. You are repeating what they want lemmings like you to say.

Please...

Show me the signing statement that supports that contention!

Nothing that I've posted in this thread is a talking point. I've agreed with you that I have no problem with Bush's signing statements (or Obama's) in and of themselves. As I've said REPEATEDLY, I've had significant legal disagreements with the interpretation of Article II powers by the Bush administration, including (but not limited to): it's view of the constitutional permissibility of torture, it's willingness to suspend habeas corpus, multiple extensions of the law through the Patriot Act, and the circumvention of the basic constitutional warrant requirements in its apparent wiretapping efforts.

You're absurd for wanting people to come forward with proof that they agree doesn't exist. You're ridiculous for wholly ignoring a nuanced argument by simply dismissing its premise as a talking point.

[Wild Cobra]

You're absurd for wanting people to come forward with proof that they agree doesn't exist. You're ridiculous for wholly ignoring a nuanced argument by simply dismissing its premise as a talking point.
If you say so. Funny how we never have these discussion of how liberal laws may and do get abused.

We obviously disagree with Article II powers. I have always seen the president as the "Executor of Law." That title in itself, allows for this person to decide how such laws are implemented. Listening to the opinions of people like Yoo does not mean you will agree with or carry out such actions. When discussing any plans for future contingency, you do not ignore options you may disagree with or dislike. That can wait until the necessity presents itself. Some people call it "the moment of truth."

I'll admit I didn't read the whole Yoo Memo, but I keyword searched "torture" and a few other words. His take was not like people like to play it out as. I never saw it as saying torture is OK, just the lines between what is torture and what isn't.

[FromWayDowntown]

So when President Bush (or President Obama) says "I won't enforce this law to the extent that I deem it unconstitutional" or "I won't enforce this law to the extent that I believe it infringes on the powers vested to the Executive through Article II," I can agree with that in general. What I take issue with is when the President's belief in what the scope of Article II powers are or when the President's basis for deeming a law unconstitutional is rooted in untenable legal theories concerning the constitutional balance of powers.

Thus, I agree with everything that DOJ says in the document you've quoted above about the use of signing statements. It's in the enforcement of the signing statement afterwards -- something that won't appear in the signing statement itself -- that the problem arises.

If you're unwilling to engage in a discussion at that level, this thread is pointless. You're making a point that few actually disagree with and you won't engage in a discussion of the argument that forms the basis for the disagreement; you just simply dismiss those you disagree with as regurgitating talking points rather than actually engaging them on the merits of the argument.

[LnGrrrR]

I can't. You seem to be arguing against their legal use when you don't like the president who used them.

Well, you would be wrong then. I'm not arguing against the legal use of signing statements. I'm arguing against the strong executive theory, of which the interpretation of Bush's signing statements play a (relatively) small part.


I'll bet we could find statistics out there that show under the same circumstances, his usage was less than others. He had a congress trying to tie his wartime powers and he said no. If we eliminated all such instances since signing statements were used to protect Article II powers, I'm pretty sure the numbers would be different.

IIRC, Bush signed more signing statements, but it might have been Clinton. The biggest point about 'wartime' powers is the belief that, since terrorism can strike anywhere, at any time, that theoretically the US could be permanently in a state of war, thereby granting the President powers which were originally reserved for 'emergency' situations. I think you'll find that is what disturbs/concerns most liberals.


Exactly. How many were used to protect from a majority in congress that hated the president?OK, they are arguing the point then "that's not fair. I don't like it when they can legally be used to do what I don't like" Isn't that childish? Is the usage legal or not?

I don't think anyone's arguing that signing statements are illegal. I think most are arguing that the legal framework/theory behind them are wrong/false. It's akin to a law that is shot down by a court... is the usage legal? Sure, until a court overrules it as unlawful/unconstitutional. I think many people who argue against Yoo's theory are arguing that the idea of a President using these emergency powers in the War on Terror is acting incorrectly.


Shouldn't that be the point?No, he just followed others. Did you read the link I posted in Post #86 from the Clinton administration? Here is a small extract of THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm), November 3, 1993:

Yes, I'm aware. However, usually signing statements are focused on certain instances, whereas the Bush signing statements seemed to be more open-ended, and counter to laws specifically designed to limit executive power.


I disagree with some of the things I heard Yoo say. I won't say they are legally wrong, but yes, morally questionable.

This is really the whole point of it. Do you think it should be legal for the President to perform extreme acts, such as torture, to protect America during emergency or wartime? Yoo thinks it should be legal, as the President is granted the ability as commander-in-chief. Others, like myself and Winehole, disagree. It hasn't been decided by SCOTUS yet, so we're arguing about the legality of the theory.



Again, have an example of a such a signing statement? That's what I was going to do. Show why the statement isn't improper. The point is clear and simple. Congress cannot have written laws enforced that hinder a president's Article II powers. Any layman should be able to understand that.

Then answer this simple hypothetical question, if the legality is easy to determine.

If Congress signs a law, specifically stating that the President is not allowed to interrogate a relative of a detainee in order to gain information, is that law legal or not?

And another... can the President authorize the military to torture unlawful combatants? Not just interrogate, but torture? Keep in mind, we did sign a treaty saying we would not torture. Which takes precedence? The treaty we signed, or the President's wartime capabilities?


I think he will, however, I think he will do his best in confidential communications with congress telling them he doesn't want legislation that he has to do such. Being of the same mindset as him, I think congress will be careful of such legislation in the future.

Given how hard Obama has been pushing for the state secrets privilege, I doubt it, sadly.

[FromWayDowntown]

Listening to the opinions of people like Yoo does not mean you will agree with or carry out such actions. When discussing any plans for future contingency, you do not ignore options you may disagree with or dislike. That can wait until the necessity presents itself. Some people call it "the moment of truth."

Oh, it's quite obvious that President Bush was relying quite heavily on what John Yoo was arguing. Yoo (along with David Addington) was, among other things, the "legal mastermind" of the military tribunal systems that sprung up in the immediate aftermath of war in Afghanistan and has been a major legal proponent of arguments aimed at defending torture.

That's precisely the legal question that is at issue here -- if the President's decision to adhere to a law or reject it was guided by the arguments provided by guys like Yoo (and it clearly was) and if those arguments were for unprecedented expansions of Article II power (Yoo argued with some vigor that being "at war" gave the President substantial discretion to simply disregard the enactments of Congress in the course of executing the war), then an otherwise-unobjectionable signing statement becomes the articulation of an express intent not to defy Congress but to ignore long-understood Constitutional principles.

[Wild Cobra]

What I take issue with is when the President's belief in what the scope of Article II powers are or when the President's basis for deeming a law unconstitutional is rooted in untenable legal theories concerning the constitutional balance of powers. Then shouldn't the congress take their side to the courts if they agree with that as well? If it affects an individual under the law, then they have cause to take it to court. Isn't that how it works? What about McCain-Feingold? Parts of it were challlenged. Sometimes you have to wait for it to go to court.
Thus, I agree with everything that DOJ says in the document you've quoted above about the use of signing statements. It's in the enforcement of the signing statement afterwards -- something that won't appear in the signing statement itself -- that the problem arises. yet many laws are always selectively enforced anyway. So many examples to choose from. Guidance from mayors, police chiefs, governors, you name it. Are you just using this like others do for Bush Bashing?
If you're unwilling to engage in a discussion at that level, this thread is pointless. You're making a point that few actually disagree with and you won't engage in a discussion of the argument that forms the basis for the disagreement; you just simply dismiss those you disagree with as regurgitating talking points rather than actually engaging them on the merits of the argument.
Then it's the same endless over any subject.

Opinion!

Like I repeatedly said, I'm looking for facts.

Well, you would be wrong then. I'm not arguing against the legal use of signing statements. I'm arguing against the strong executive theory, of which the interpretation of Bush's signing statements play a (relatively) small part.Well, I suggest you take it up with the courts because it has been validated. One reason why I feared having a "community organizer" become president. Too many ways to abuse executive power. This is just where anyone how wants power and despises what made America wants to be. So they can disassemble it. President Obama seems to be doing a great job at destroying this nation.
IIRC, Bush signed more signing statements, but it might have been Clinton. The biggest point about 'wartime' powers is the belief that, since terrorism can strike anywhere, at any time, that theoretically the US could be permanently in a state of war, thereby granting the President powers which were originally reserved for 'emergency' situations. I think you'll find that is what disturbs/concerns most liberals.I see the "what if" scenario a bit overboard. However, right now, we continue to see terrorist activity. During the Clinton administration, they managed an attack about once a year average. I'd say president Bush has done a rather good job at preventing the attacks, and I do not see any means he used as unconstitutional.
I don't think anyone's arguing that signing statements are illegal. I think most are arguing that the legal framework/theory behind them are wrong/false. It's akin to a law that is shot down by a court... is the usage legal? Sure, until a court overrules it as unlawful/unconstitutional. I think many people who argue against Yoo's theory are arguing that the idea of a President using these emergency powers in the War on Terror is acting incorrectly.Then please show me one where the argument for it is wrong. To say that a statement is wrong because a point Yoo made is wrong doesn't wash. Does the signing statement infringe on presidential powers or not when stated as such? Who cares if an example is misguided or not. How about real possibilities?
Yes, I'm aware. However, usually signing statements are focused on certain instances, whereas the Bush signing statements seemed to be more open-ended, and counter to laws specifically designed to limit executive power.counter to laws specifically designed to limit executive power...

Shouldn't we be ashamed at such a congress?
This is really the whole point of it. Do you think it should be legal for the President to perform extreme acts, such as torture, to protect America during emergency or wartime?Extreme acts, yes. Torture, NO!
Yoo thinks it should be legal, as the President is granted the ability as commander-in-chief. Others, like myself and Winehole, disagree. It hasn't been decided by SCOTUS yet, so we're arguing about the legality of the theory.Besides the debate and audio clip that may be a misstatement, have anything that has Yoo endorsing torture?
Then answer this simple hypothetical question, if the legality is easy to determine.

If Congress signs a law, specifically stating that the President is not allowed to interrogate a relative of a detainee in order to gain information, is that law legal or not?That is a fuzzy one, beyond my pay grade. In general, I would say no. However, it would be circumstance specific. I will not assume that there isn't a proper reason to do otherwise. It is absolutely morally objectionable.
And another... can the President authorize the military to torture unlawful combatants? Not just interrogate, but torture? Keep in mind, we did sign a treaty saying we would not torture. Which takes precedence? The treaty we signed, or the President's wartime capabilities?Torture, NO. However, I find it hard to say no because the media and liberals are calling things torture that are not torture. I say yes to these enhanced techniques.
Oh, it's quite obvious that President Bush was relying quite heavily on what John Yoo was arguing. Yoo (along with David Addington) was, among other things, the "legal mastermind" of the military tribunal systems that sprung up in the immediate aftermath of war in Afghanistan and has been a major legal proponent of arguments aimed at defending torture. Torture, or enhanced techniques?
That's precisely the legal question that is at issue here -- if the President's decision to adhere to a law or reject it was guided by the arguments provided by guys like Yoo (and it clearly was) Really? Were you a fly on the wall? How many other people do you think a president listens to before making such a decision?
and if those arguments were for unprecedented expansions of Article II power (Yoo argued with some vigor that being "at war" gave the President substantial discretion to simply disregard the enactments of Congress in the course of executing the war), then an otherwise-unobjectionable signing statement becomes the articulation of an express intent not to defy Congress but to ignore long-understood Constitutional principles.I see no expansion of executive powers any different that any past president has used. The provisions are already deemed constitutional. With or without a signing statement.

[LnGrrrR]

That is a fuzzy one, beyond my pay grade. In general, I would say no. However, it would be circumstance specific. I will not assume that there isn't a proper reason to do otherwise. It is absolutely morally objectionable.

This is the crux of the argument, IMHO. This and your answer to the next question.

We're arguing over whether that should be legal or not, and the framework behind that decision. Do a President's emergency powers trump other laws?


Torture, NO. However, I find it hard to say no because the media and liberals are calling things torture that are not torture. I say yes to these enhanced techniques.

I thought you said that nothing can infringe on the President's Article II powers? If not, then why can't he tell his executive branch to commit torture, murder, or anything else in order to gain the information needed to protect this country?

[Wild Cobra]

This is the crux of the argument, IMHO. This and your answer to the next question.

We're arguing over whether that should be legal or not, and the framework behind that decision. Do a President's emergency powers trump other laws?They have trumped over law in the past. Already tried and tested.
I thought you said that nothing can infringe on the President's Article II powers? If not, then why can't he tell his executive branch to commit torture, murder, or anything else in order to gain the information needed to protect this country?I never said any such thing. Please show me where I did. I may have misspoken. I said congress cannot write laws that limit the presidents powers. The president still must abide by the constitution and treaties.

[LnGrrrR]

They have trumped over law in the past. Already tried and tested.

Yes, they have, but to what degree? For instance, many scholars think that it was unconstitutional, or at the least, morally wrong, to have placed Japanese-Americans in detention camps during WWII.


I never said any such thing. Please show me where I did. I may have misspoken. I said congress cannot write laws that limit the presidents powers. The president still must abide by the constitution and treaties.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I will agree with you that Congress can not write laws that limit the President's defined Constitutional powers. However, I think that many things that a President claims are his powers are not clearly defined in the Constitution.

Now, I could be wrong, but if Congress signs a bill stating that certain money should be used for certain things, is it infringing on a President's powers if he decides to allocate those funds somewhere else? What if the bill specifically states certain things it WON'T fund, and the President funds it with the money anyways, stating it's not Congress' job to tell him how he can run the executive branch?

Of course, Congress can't tell him how to run his branch. But it CAN tell him what is and isn't funded, can't it? That is the proper role of Congress. So which side wins in this case?

It also comes out to being an effective line item veto in many cases, where instead of vetoing the bill, the President just declares which parts of the law are 'illegal' or 'unconstitutional' and then he doesn't have to abide by it (unless it's taken to court somehow).

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, they have, but to what degree? For instance, many scholars think that it was unconstitutional, or at the least, morally wrong, to have placed Japanese-Americans in detention camps during WWII.
I agree it was morally wrong, but I doubt it was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure most people of the time wouldn't consider it unreasonable. I would say by today's standards, it was unreasonable. However, those were different times.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.I'm sure there were heated discussions about this then, as well as now and the future to come. It boils down to weather the actions were reasonable or not. The president clearly thought it was to protect this nation, but who really determines that? If I recall, court cases at the time supported the decision, but I never really studied that situation. Reasonable or not, I say it was wrong, but today, we are looking at that with 20/20 hindsight. Not really fair to judge the past that way in my opinion.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I will agree with you that Congress can not write laws that limit the President's defined Constitutional powers. However, I think that many things that a President claims are his powers are not clearly defined in the Constitution.

Example please.

Now, I could be wrong, but if Congress signs a bill stating that certain money should be used for certain things, is it infringing on a President's powers if he decides to allocate those funds somewhere else? What if the bill specifically states certain things it WON'T fund, and the President funds it with the money anyways, stating it's not Congress' job to tell him how he can run the executive branch?

I think that's the only control congress can have, and depends on the wording. "Should" is not and absolute term. Democrats effectively made us lose the Viet-Nam war that way. Something they obviously are not willing to do with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, Congress can't tell him how to run his branch. But it CAN tell him what is and isn't funded, can't it? That is the proper role of Congress. So which side wins in this case?

Congress wins, unless they lose in the public eye. Will the congress Nixon had ever be forgiven by conservatives? Or by the vets who came back to a public that hated them?


It also comes out to being an effective line item veto in many cases, where instead of vetoing the bill, the President just declares which parts of the law are 'illegal' or 'unconstitutional' and then he doesn't have to abide by it (unless it's taken to court somehow).

Would it be better to be forced to veto the whole bill?

If congress is stupid enough to try to infringe on Article II powers, then they deserve it.

[Wild Cobra]

I finally read the August 2002 memo in it's entirety, so I came back to this posting:
I will ask again. Do you agree with the legal theory that comes to conclusions like this?

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Do you agree or disagree that the President is able to do such a thing?
Cassel is flat out wrong in the contention behind the question. Yoo's responce in saying "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." was either edited, or he misspoke, because it is clearly different than what he wrote in the memo. He specifically said, on page 2:

Section 2340 further defines "severe mental pain or suffering" as:
the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical
pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application,
of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly
the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality.
As for the six minutes of audio, I tried listening to it before, but it's a very bad audio. I have a hard time distinguishing the words with the background noises I have around me. I finally listened to that today. I just shake my head at the things Yoo didn't say and have clarified. Nothing he has written supports the idea that it's OK to crush testicles, in fact, his writings clearly say otherwise.

All along, Yoo was saying that it is section 2340 that the president must comply with. Just not other international agreements between other nations.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree it was morally wrong, but I doubt it was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure most people of the time wouldn't consider it unreasonable. I would say by today's standards, it was unreasonable. However, those were different times.I'm sure there were heated discussions about this then, as well as now and the future to come. It boils down to weather the actions were reasonable or not. The president clearly thought it was to protect this nation, but who really determines that? If I recall, court cases at the time supported the decision, but I never really studied that situation. Reasonable or not, I say it was wrong, but today, we are looking at that with 20/20 hindsight. Not really fair to judge the past that way in my opinion.

Agreed it must have been tough then, but as any society must do, we must look back and determine what was just/unjust in order to avoid things like this in the future.


Congress wins, unless they lose in the public eye. Will the congress Nixon had ever be forgiven by conservatives? Or by the vets who came back to a public that hated them?

Yes, but I'm just talking about procedural issues. If the President takes said money and spends it on whatever he wants anyways, how can Congress call him on that? Impeachment would seem the only clear option.


Would it be better to be forced to veto the whole bill?

I would prefer that yes, but I understand why it's not done, as that would make passing something extremely hard. Of course, I'm all for that, as that's pretty much what our government was designed to do... make it hard to pass laws. As a conservative, you don't like the idea of making it harder to pass laws? :D

[LnGrrrR]

...All along, Yoo was saying that it is section 2340 that the president must comply with. Just not other international agreements between other nations.

You don't think that the fact that Yoo didn't outright say, "No, the President could not do that" implies that Yoo could see instances where he would find it acceptable and/or legal?

If Yoo didn't think there was a way that was legally possible, wouldn't he have just said, "No, the President could not do that, regardless of the situation."? Or is it your belief that he 'misspoke'? Because he has long advocated great authority for executive positions.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't think that the fact that Yoo didn't outright say, "No, the President could not do that" implies that Yoo could see instances where he would find it acceptable and/or legal?

If Yoo didn't think there was a way that was legally possible, wouldn't he have just said, "No, the President could not do that, regardless of the situation."? Or is it your belief that he 'misspoke'? Because he has long advocated great authority for executive positions.
I'm can only guess to the circumstances. His writings clearly say otherwise. Why must I repeat that? Did you read the memo? I honestly think he either misspoke, or the tape was edited.

Remember the TV interview with Palin, and her talks about Russia? That tape was edited. They cut out several sentences she said between the question and the aired answer, making that "I can see Russia from my House" a comedy special.

I never trust what is said unless I'm there, or know I am listening to or reading from an unedited tape or transcript. People with agenda's too often lie with creative editing.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm can only guess to the circumstances. His writings clearly say otherwise. Why must I repeat that? Did you read the memo? I honestly think he either misspoke, or the tape was edited.

Remember the TV interview with Palin, and her talks about Russia? That tape was edited. They cut out several sentences she said between the question and the aired answer, making that "I can see Russia from my House" a comedy special.

I never trust what is said unless I'm there, or know I am listening to or reading from an unedited tape or transcript. People with agenda's too often lie with creative editing.

Cmon WC. How do you "know" that you are listening to an unedited tape or transcript? There are multiple sources that refer to that interview. Did you listen to the longer audio I posted, not just that one clip?

What about John Yoo's other memos and legal positions? His commentaries on papers like the Wall Street Ed page? He consistently has given the impression that he believes the President's wartime powers trump the normal checks and balances.

There's no way to prove completely that the tape wasn't edited, anymore than you can prove that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. But to think that this quote has been out there for YEARS, and not a single person, not even Yoo himself, has disowned it, or disproved it, would tend to make one think it was an accurate depiction of what he said. (Not even taking into account the fact that it was, IIRC, a live debate with many different witnesses.)

Just look up "John Yoo testicles" on yahoo. You'll find youtube clips there as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Cmon WC. How do you "know" that you are listening to an unedited tape or transcript? There are multiple sources that refer to that interview. Did you listen to the longer audio I posted, not just that one clip?
That's m y pojnt. You usually don't know if it's unedited. As for the clip quoted by so many links, they all use the same source. I have not seen two or more sources on the issue. Have you? I already said I listened to the audio. Doesn't mean it wasn't edited.


What about John Yoo's other memos and legal positions? His commentaries on papers like the Wall Street Ed page? He consistently has given the impression that he believes the President's wartime powers trump the normal checks and balances.

I won't disagree with that thought. I am disagreeing with the testicle argument. All the rest of his work I have read excludes him from making such a statement. It is completely inconsistent with his works.


There's no way to prove completely that the tape wasn't edited, anymore than you can prove that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. But to think that this quote has been out there for YEARS, and not a single person, not even Yoo himself, has disowned it, or disproved it, would tend to make one think it was an accurate depiction of what he said. (Not even taking into account the fact that it was, IIRC, a live debate with many different witnesses.)

There can be several reasons for that. One of which is not validating something by commenting on it.


Just look up "John Yoo testicles" on yahoo. You'll find youtube clips there as well.

I'll do that, but it still doesn't mean he didn't mis-speak.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, if you listen carefully to the audio, there is someone else speaking just before Yoo gives the last part of the response. Maybe he was answering a different question too.

As for the Youtube clips. They are all the same audio, and no video yet. Is that what you call multiple sources?

[LnGrrrR]

I'll do that, but it still doesn't mean he didn't mis-speak.

I'll wait until you watch the video to continue.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll wait until you watch the video to continue.

There are so many there. I saw no video, just pics and the same source tape. I'm still looking except I've also watched parts of a 2008 congressional hearing. Watching the whole thing now:

sUHoi1gKfrM

Find me the video you are talking about and I'll pause this one and look at it in another tab.

[LnGrrrR]

There are so many there. I saw no video, just pics and the same source tape. I'm still looking except I've also watched parts of a 2008 congressional hearing. Watching the whole thing now:

sUHoi1gKfrM

Find me the video you are talking about and I'll pause this one and look at it in another tab.

I'll try to find it and get it to you. My earlier comments stand, I think, about the multiple viewers and not disavowing the comments.

Just know that next time you quote anything from FoxNews, I'm going to play the "How do you know it wasn't edited?" card ;)

[Wild Cobra]

But to think that this quote has been out there for YEARS, and not a single person, not even Yoo himself, has disowned it, or disproved it, would tend to make one think it was an accurate depiction of what he said.
You are wrong. Yoo says he was cut off, and the answer is out of context because it doesn't have the rest of his remarks on the subject. See the hour plus Youtube I linked. It starts about 48-1/2 minutes in.

Oh... Addington explains "unitarian" a little after 50 minutes.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm 1 hr. and 12 minutes into the video and It's appalling how they badger Yoo. Ellison is asking an impossible question to answer under oath without assuming.

[Wild Cobra]

Just know that next time you quote anything from FoxNews, I'm going to play the "How do you know it wasn't edited?" card ;)
As you wish. Just remember the Couric interview is verified as edited.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. Just finished the hostile interrogation of Yoo and Addington by congress. I cannot believe how lame congress can be by using sources like Vanity Fair to ask questions from.

[Wild Cobra]

As you wish. Just remember the Couric interview is verified as edited.
I meant the Gibson interview, with her proximity to Alaska, but the Couric interview was also edited.

[Winehole23]

Pretty much all TV content is edited, WC.

[LnGrrrR]

You are wrong. Yoo says he was cut off, and the answer is out of context because it doesn't have the rest of his remarks on the subject. See the hour plus Youtube I linked. It starts about 48-1/2 minutes in.

Oh... Addington explains "unitarian" a little after 50 minutes.

Thanks for the info! I'll take a look when I have some free time tonight.

[Wild Cobra]

Pretty much all TV content is edited, WC.
I know that. The problem is, the media did negative editing for McCain/Palin and positive editing for Obama/Biden. Most people never knew the difference. I've been carefully comparing the available transcript of the Charlie Gibson interview. The red bold type in the transcript is the conversation that is edited out. This is from the ABC site at that! Here is the aired interview and transcript (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1):

3ALsjhDDdaA


GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.

[missing text: When McCain asked you to take the #2 spot...]

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we're talking about Israel, we're talking about Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being the "stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth," that's atrocious. That's unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

[Wild Cobra]

In all fairness, part of the edited out stuff is here, as a part 2:

aZvJ29P2N7U


GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." [video clip] Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

[LnGrrrR]

You know what, the EXTRA information makes me think a little less of her. I don't think Georgia should be in NATO, and it's sad to hear her parrot the line that the President's top priority is to defend the USA. It should be bleedingly obvious that the President's top priority is to defend the Constitution. At least she mentioned that the President swears to uphold the Constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

You know what, the EXTRA information makes me think a little less of her. I don't think Georgia should be in NATO, and it's sad to hear her parrot the line that the President's top priority is to defend the USA. It should be bleedingly obvious that the President's top priority is to defend the Constitution. At least she mentioned that the President swears to uphold the Constitution.
My whole point of posting this was to show the severe editing and how it affects peoples perceptions. It's very unethical in my view to ask about the experience with Russia, cut much of the answer out, then leave it as her saying that you can see Russia from Alaska. This lead to the Tina Fey skit that had her saying "I can see Russia from my house" and then people actually believed Palin said that.

Fucking retards.

[LnGrrrR]

My whole point of posting this was to show the severe editing and how it affects peoples perceptions. It's very unethical in my view to ask about the experience with Russia, but much of the answer out, then leave it as her saying that you can see Russia from Alaska. This lead to the Tina Fey skit that had hger saying "I can see Russia from my house" and then people actually believed Palin said that.

Fucking retards.

Yes, I agree with your basic point.

To sum up, I still believe that the Bush office, and if Obama keeps it up, him too, try to push for executive power and secrecy in many areas I'm not comfortable with. (State secrets privilege to toss out court cases, warrantless wiretapping, even small things like refusing to allow coffins to be shown on TV.)

Signing statements can be valid, but I don't think it's as clearcut as you state them to be. However, it's not like we'll ever know, unless the President is somehow brought to court over them. (And yes, there's already been one case you mentioned, but that was specifically about the legislature trying to perform an executive act, ie appointments).

And from everything I've read by John Yoo, I still think he's a putz, and has a twisted idea of the fundamental nature of the way our government works. This statement explains it the best way I know how: "We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-61)"

That just doesn't happen. The executive is granted some emergency powers, but that does not mean the balance of power 'shifts' to them in any sort of way. And given Yoo's seeming affinity for finding these powers in nearly any situation, and his idea that the War on Terrorism has no set 'victory' point or clear battlefield... it just strikes me as unAmerican.

[Wild Cobra]

To sum up, I still believe that the Bush office, and if Obama keeps it up, him too, try to push for executive power and secrecy in many areas I'm not comfortable with. (State secrets privilege to toss out court cases, Secrets are sometimes necessary. My job field in the Army included working with cryptography. I was even in the Nuclear Theater for six years. I understand the necessity of secrecy.
warrantless wiretapping, You should read what the definitions mean there. A warrent is an order to take action, not permission to. A warrent is not needed with probable cause. The fourth amendment protects against "unreasonable" actions. I think most people, when honestly considering the facts, see The Patriot Act as reasonable.
even small things like refusing to allow coffins to be shown on TV.) They changed that so the can be shown if the family says it's OK.
Signing statements can be valid, but I don't think it's as clearcut as you state them to be. However, it's not like we'll ever know, unless the President is somehow brought to court over them. (And yes, there's already been one case you mentioned, but that was specifically about the legislature trying to perform an executive act, ie appointments).Tell that to a congressman or senator next time he cries about it. Ask him why he isn't challenging it in court.
And from everything I've read by John Yoo, I still think he's a putz, and has a twisted idea of the fundamental nature of the way our government works. This statement explains it the best way I know how: "We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#cite_note-61)"
I have no problems with that. He gives legal opinions, not moral opinions. Ever know a lawyer to do otherwise? He was doing his job. His problem is that he is not a good orator. He does great legal research, but has a hard time verbally. He gets very nervous.

That just doesn't happen. The executive is granted some emergency powers, but that does not mean the balance of power 'shifts' to them in any sort of way. And given Yoo's seeming affinity for finding these powers in nearly any situation, and his idea that the War on Terrorism has no set 'victory' point or clear battlefield... it just strikes me as unAmerican.
Well, I and the courts disagree. Such things have happend and been tested in the courts of the past.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it legally wrong. If it's a big issue for you, do your best to amend the constitution or something.

[LnGrrrR]

Secrets are sometimes necessary. My job field in the Army included working with cryptography. I was even in the Nuclear Theater for six years. I understand the necessity of secrecy.

Hey, I'm comm too. I know all about the need for security. However, I also realize when the 'need for security' card is overplayed to prevent losing face.

You should read what the definitions mean there. A warrent is an order to take action, not permission to. A warrent is not needed with probable cause. The fourth amendment protects against "unreasonable" actions. I think most people, when honestly considering the facts, see The Patriot Act as reasonable. [/quote]

Given that they are casting a wide net and pulling in certain bits of data, to compile them into a chart, most likely with deep packet inspection, how are they only targetting terrorists? How are they determining their "probable cause"? And a warrant also consists of permission. Without a warrant, can an officer search your house? It is both an order to take action and permission to take that action.


They changed that so the can be shown if the family says it's OK.

Yes, which I think is a good move. People who suggest/advocate war should be willing to deal with seeing results of that war, good and bad.



Just because you don't like something doesn't make it legally wrong. If it's a big issue for you, do your best to amend the constitution or something.

Oh, I know that. Why do you think I send letters to representatives to change some of these laws/legal opinions? As of now, certain standings/opinions are legal, when I don't think they should be, so I advocate against them.

And thanks for being able to have a good, fair discussion. Will I make fun of Republicans/Conservatives time to time? Sure, I'm human. But I'm usually willing to debate issues if the person I'm debating them with is cogent and not prone to hysterics.

[Winehole23]

Questionable or not, I say the president is bound by constitution to ignore parts of law that interfere with his duties.Would you agree, then, with Obama's latest presidential signing statement:



Today I have signed into law S. 2195, an Act concerning visa limitations for certain representatives to the United Nations. S. 2195 amends section 407 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, to provide that no individual may be admitted to the United States as a representative to the United Nations, if that individual has been found to have been engaged in espionage or terrorist activity directed against the United States or its allies, and if that individual may pose a threat to United States national security interests. As President Bush observed in signing the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, this provision “could constrain the exercise of my exclusive constitutional authority to receive within the United States certain foreign ambassadors to the United Nations.” (Public Papers of the President, George Bush, Vol. I, 1990, page 240). Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation. Nevertheless, as President Bush also observed, “curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution.” I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/20/another-obama-administration-signing-statement/

[Winehole23]

Obama doing just what he excoriated Bush for: using signing statements as an end run around Congress.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama doing just what he excoriated Bush for: using signing statements as an end run around Congress.
Politics as usual.

[Nbadan]

Obama doing just what he excoriated Bush for: using signing statements as an end run around Congress.


common WH...this is a trend made popular by GOP darling Reagan...



President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.[7]

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

but Bush abused it...


Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[11] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[11] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[12]

The Obama administration only issued 22 statements during his first term. While these statements are chock-full of constitutional challenges (Obama’s most recent NDAA signing statement challenges more than 20 sections of law on constitutional grounds), the lack of frequency with which the administration issues them leaves Obama nowhere close to Bush in terms of the number of provisions challenged over a similar timeframe.