more on President's claims vs. what Congress writes vs. what courts decide

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu>
Date: May 10, 2006 5:57:29 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on President's claims vs. what Congress writes  
vs. what courts decide

Greetings Dave,

I wanted to amplify Robert Atkinson's point on these 'signing'
statements - in part because this same issue has shown up on IP
several times.
(see http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200603/ 
msg00231.html
) for a recent example.)

Precisely _zero_  judges, congressmembers, or knowledgeable attorneys
(other than the poor sap stuck with writing the statement) care a lick
about these statements, because they are as non-binding and
insignificant as, say, if a president were issue an order declaring
the voting age to be 7, or the line item veto to be suddenly
constitutional.

Sure, these signing statements are all formal and even printed in the
Fed. Register - this sounds !significant! and !official! and is
confusing to Joe Citizen.  It even makes for a great news article, but
it doesn't mean these statements have any legal significance.

Now that I've flippantly suggested this couldn't matter less - the
Globe article is _spot on_ to highlight these statements, as legally
insignificant as they are, because of the interpretations and
Administration policies they illuminate.  Read the whole article for
important insights it gets from a variety of Constitutional experts
and historians as to 'what it all means.'

Those opposed to the current Administration claim that (regardless of
their legal insignificance) these documents are further proof that the
current President is flouting the balance of power and asserting
authority to break laws - but if you want to find a silver lining, at
least the statements all reiterate that the President is restricted
by, and can only exercise power pursuant to, the Constitution.  I
think everyone sees that acknowledgement as a good first step.

-Ethan


On 5/10/06, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Atkinson, Robert" <rca53 () columbia edu>
> Date: May 10, 2006 4:05:30 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] President claims supreme power over laws, military
> -- 750 'signing statement'
>
> Checks and balances are alive and well. The Supreme Court--not the
> President and not Congress--decides what is or is not Constitutional.
> The case books are full of Court decisions which find that Congress  
> has
> adopted un-Constitutional laws and the case books are equally full of
> Court decisions finding that the Executive Branch has taken
> administrative actions that are also found to be un-Constitutional.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:04 PM
> To: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: [IP] President claims supreme power over laws, military --  
> 750
> 'signing statement'
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Shannon McElyea <shannonm () gmail com>
> Date: May 10, 2006 2:42:26 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: President claims supreme power over laws, military -- 750
> 'signing statement'
>
>   Dave,
>
> I think this is for IP. This matter is worse than the title of this
> article implies. bye bye checks and balances.
> "...Bush has been quietly filing  ''signing statements" --
> "...official documents in which a president lays out his legal
> interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when
> implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal
> register ..."
>
> Unlike a veto, they are not reviewed by congress.
>
> "...Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and
> regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that
> Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-
> blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards
> against political interference in federally funded research. ..."
>
>   http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/
> bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
> Bush challenges hundreds of lawsPresident cites powers of his office
> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  April 30, 2006
>
> WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to
> disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting
> that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress
> when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
>
> Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and
> regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that
> Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-
> blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards
> against political interference in federally funded research.
>
> "... Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about
> declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he
> says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him
> alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief
> of the military. ..."
>
> "...Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several
> administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the
> law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."
>
> But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution"
> are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself
> the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly
> exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US
> history.
>
> Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a
> bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead,
> he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the
> legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes
> praise upon their work.
>
> Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House,
> Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in
> which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the
> federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The
> statements are recorded in the federal register. ..."


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/