Need ammo against RW post on legality of signing statements

[steve2470]

http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=116991

At the url above, I labelled * a king for his signing statements. The retort was, Clinton had the Line Item Veto as well whats your point?
Then he said,

Presidents can "make" laws, they are just called Excutive Orders. They have been around for a long time, part of the Implied Powers clause in the Constitution. A perfect example of this would be the Office of Homeland Security.

I think I know what my retort will be, but I want more ammo. Please help. Thanks.......Steve

[Hamlette]

1. Clinton did not have the line item veto

we've fought about that for years, it has never passed.

And, because Congress has legislative power. If Congress didn't want it to apply to the prez, they'd say so.

Checks and balances.

If anyone gets to decide a law does not appy to the prez, its the courts. Not the prez.

[yourout]

3. With the current state of SCOTUS Bush can do anything he wants.

Very scary time that we live in right now.

[Vincardog]

2. Line Item Veto was overturned by the SCOTUS.

(p)Residential " Executive Orders" are not laws. They are instructions on how the Executive is to administer the laws passed by Congress.

No where in the constitution of the USA does it say the (p)Resident can issue signing statements. The constitution gives the (p)Resident the veto. The congress can override a veto. Congress makes Laws. The idiot bush is pulling this signing statement out of its' a$$.

Previous presidents issued signing statements to clarify their thinking on a few points. The chimp uses them to say he has no intention of enforcing the laws of the land that he swore to uphold.

[originalpckelly]

4. Signing statements are nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution...

Go check. Don't take my word for it. Nor are line-item vetos, of course since Congress was controlled by the Republicans at the time it was passed, it doesn't really matter. I would also mention that the line-item veto was struck down as being unconstitutional. If the person challenges you talk about INS v. Chadha in which the Supreme Court said that the letter of the US Constitution must be followed in these kinds of cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_v._Chadha

[sam sarrha]

5. it is legislating form the oval office, stack the courts, circumvent the

the legislature...

bingo... the Decider..or the DICTATOR

[steve2470]

6. my retort....will be interesting to see his comeback

http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?p=1116387#post1116387


sorry, close but no cigar in that argument
Quote:Originally Posted by Billybob Goodliffe
Presidents can "make" laws, they are just called Excutive Orders. They have been around for a long time, part of the Implied Powers clause in the Constitution. A perfect example of this would be the Office of Homeland Security.




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

Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

[MissWaverly]

7. here's my amateur worker/citizen/taxpayer view

Bush doesn't talk to congress, he waits until a bill comes to his desk and then he cherry picks what he wants and then augments it. Where is the will of the people in this, congress which is elected by the people is supposed to pass the laws and is answerable to their constituents. He has taken the whole pie, he makes the laws, carries out the laws and interprets the laws, he is a monarch not an elected president who is supposed to carry out the law and protect the constitution not eliminate it. This was not the intention of our founders, they had a king
and dumped him for an elected representative of the people.

[steve2470]

8. Line Item Veto Act of 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enacted a line-item veto for the Federal Government of the United States, but its effect was brief due to judicial review.

The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996 and was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient injury to press charges under Article III of the United States Constitution. The case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law.

It was used against one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 before being challenged again in two separate cases; one by the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative from Idaho and an individual member of the cooperative. Senators Byrd, Moynihan, Levin, and Hatfield again opposed the law, this time through Amicus curiæ briefs. United States District Court Judge Thomas Hogan combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented.

<snip>