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 Cons ution? 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.
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:
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 uncons utional -- which is understandable -- COUPLED with the arguments that his administration was making about what laws or portions thereof were uncons utional.
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.
Why is that troubling. I don't get it. You disagree they were uncons utional?
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?
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 Cons ution. 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?
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.
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.
I'm looking for facts. Not opinion. Have any?
No. I'm looking for real answers. You don't have what I'm looking for apparently. You just repeat talking points.
Yes, but I have never seen any facts to support the contentions.
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?
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?
OK, let me get this right. You are making up then about what the intent is. Right?
Still, no example. Just words. Please find me an example and explain how the above concerns apply.
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.
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.
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 ing the established balance between the branches by construing the President's actions as unreviewable.
WC, you're a putz.
Tell me, do you agree with THIS legal theory? (http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11488.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 Cons ution, if he thought it safe for the nation?
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.
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!
Obama cir vented 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.
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
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.
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 Cons utionality, 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 cons utional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.
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"
Records of the Administration of George W. Bush, 2006 / Mar. 9, page 425
Complete text: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.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 en ies outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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.
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 Cons ution only explicitly provides Congress the power to remove executive officers by impeachment. Also, the Cons utional 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. Part of the majority opinion:The Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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.
We're not talking about impeachment here. The issue is the President determining Cons utionality unreviewably, and ignoring stipulations of law at whim.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote