Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law Pledges to REVERSE Bush Signing Statements When Elected Prez!!

[Dems Will Win]

The Constitutional Law Expert that wants to REVERSE unconstitutional Bush signing statements.

One of the first things Obama would do as President is call in his Attorney General and go over ALL 1,100 Bush SIGNING STATEMENTS.

I'll call in my new attorney general to review every single executive order that's been issued by George Bush. And any of those that have undermined our Constitution or subverted our civil liberties are going to be reversed. - Des Moines Debate, Dec. 13

I mean think about it. Wouldn't you like to have one of the most brilliant legal experts on the Constitution in America be the President and go through all of those arcane signing statements for you?

It was only three words in his 20-minute speech announcing his candidacy -- "taught constitutional law." But his students and colleagues at the University of Chicago say those words would make Barack Obama a different kind of president.

"It certainly is an advantage that he really knows the Constitution of the United States," said Professor Cass Sunstein. "I don't know if we have had a president that knows as much about the founding document as he does."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng

What are Presidential signing statements? Signing statements are supposed to be made for those rare times when a law is not clear in the way it should be carried out by the Executive branch. They are written to help agencies and departments interpret the way new legislation should be executed.

The Bush Administration, however, unscrupulously used them to negate the will and laws of Congress, issuing over 1,100 signing statements, nearly double the number of all 42 previous Presidents combined. Rather than following the intent of the law, Bush conveniently negated laws on everything from preventing torture to protecting whistleblowers to regulating Iraq War contractors to – pesticides.

There was no ambiguity in these laws, and the way the President wrote almost all of these statements, he simply turned the law on its head. No veto required.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley was outraged: “By using signing statements to this extent, the President becomes a government unto himself. He’s usurping the legislative power that was given by the framers to Congress -- but it also invites illegality. By qualifying these laws, he allows agencies and official to say “we thought we were interpreting the law correctly, as the President told us to do so, when nobody honestly believes that interpretation is correct."

Obama's pledge on signing statements won over debate watchers on Thursday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdaROq57qsg

Please recommend so people know that if they vote Obama, they get their civil liberties back and the trampling of the constitution and Federal Law will be quickly REVERSED.

[Ravy]

1. Executive Orders are more than just the signing statements.

Everything that man has done will need to be scrutinized.

[Dems Will Win]

3. Who better to do it? Hillary won't even undo the torture signing statement

She wants to reserve the right to torture in case of "something imminent".

Mrs. Clinton refused, however, to sign an anti-torture pledge that a liberal group, the American Freedom Campaign, had asked the presidential candidates to embrace.

All of the other Democratic candidates had either signed the pledge or, in the case of former Senator John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton, foregone the pledge while committing to an anti-torture position in letters to the group.

Mrs. Clinton’s position on torture has been under scrutiny since last week, when, in a Democratic presidential debate, she said torture “cannot be American policy, period.” She told the New York Daily News last year that she was open to a narrow exception to a torture ban to interrogate a terrorist and prevent “something imminent.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/torture-is-torture/

[Ravy]

31. Personally, I am supporting Edwards, but Obama is my second choice. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. K&R... I'm gonna have to check Obama out a little better...

I've honestly never even given him a second thought as I've been a fan of Edwards since 2004 and right now have my support behind Kucinich.

Thanks for the info...

:hi:

[notadmblnd]

4. Yup that tens to sway me a little too.

One of my problems with both Barack and Hillery is that they seem to go along with the right more often than they stand against them. This behavior has led me to think that they are both part of the problem in DC.

I know I want my next president to be someone who will undo the damage to our constitution that the present leadership has done. This promise by Obama is a good step.

[Toots]

5. And yet he opposes Impeachment...

Maybe he dowsn't understand the concept of what he taught...

[Dems Will Win]

6. Because there aren't enough Republican votes to impeach Bush

IT would just be a huge distraction and actually take longer than the election does! Here's what Obama said and it makes sense:

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

[immoderate]

9. Not exactly...

Impeachment is like an indictment. It requires a simple majority in the House. Clinton was impeached.

Then, a trial is held in the Senate and conviction requires a two thirds majority of the Senators. Impeachment could be done in a week if the Democrats wanted it. Consider a hypothetical case of a president going completely berserk. (Some might not consider this so hypothetical.) It can't take a year to get a demented president out of office. It can happen in as much time as it takes to sing God Bless America on the capitol steps.

Edit to add: Counting votes now is like polling the jury before the evidence is presented. The Senate acts as the jury. If they vote contrary to the evidence, they will have to face the voters. IOW, it's hard to predict the outcome.

--IMM

[Dems Will Win]

11. You're right I should have said CONVICT. What Obama is saying that

if Bush is impeached by the House, then the issues of the election will be submerged in a media whirlpool over impeachment, and the conservative base will be enraged, and many Indies will likely reject impeachment too.

He's saying the election is the better way for Democrats to remove Bush from office at this point, since conviction in the Senate is impossible.

[immoderate]

23. I won't grant that conviction is impossible.

After the evidence is presented, senators would have to deny reality to vote acquittal. They might just fear the wrath of the voters. It won't take many switches in votes to unseat many of them. They may want to throw Bush under the bus to keep their jobs and avoid disgrace.

Moreover, since the congress is not accomplishing much as it is, it might be a useful distraction. :)

--IMM

[Toots]

10. Impeachment can happen with zero Republican votes

If all Democrats vote for it, it will happen. After that Removal from office has a much higher hurdle but so what? To have it recorded in History books that this pResdient was Impeached by the American people for crimes against our country. That to me is very important.,. We know he will not be removed from office before Jan 20th '09, that is not the most important thing..

[bvar22]

30. Yes. Upholding the Constitution....

..and fulfilling your Oath of Office is always such a distraction.

[spanone]

7. K&R

[Wizard777]

8. I'm starting to like Obama. At least he realizes that his first term as President will be about

Reviewing Bush's Presidency. That's what I don't like about Hillary. Her first term will be egocentric in declaring Bush to be gone and it's all about her now. Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! is all I hear from Hillary and we've had more than enough of that with Bush. The next presidency will be about everything BUT the next President. It will be about reviewing Bush & Cheny's crime spree and getting We The People everything Bush and Congress has denied us for the sake of Iraqi's. Obama seems to be hip to this and okay with it. If Obama can redress the countries (and the world's) greivance with Bush and get America what We The People need. Like the restoration of our rights. The his second term will all about Obama and his vision of America's future. But he needs to America to a point where securing freedom and liberty won't give everyone whiplash from the sudden about face.

[terisan]

12. I would like a president who doesn't use the word "MY" when talking about the US AT's

or any high office in government or the government itself.

Bush does this and it reveals his attitude toward the US government. I hope this is not true of Senator Obama.

The ownership of government is vested in we the people. The attorney general may be nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate but the Attorney General is our AT.

I am not backing any candidate and think that any candidate will be influenced and swayed once in office by whomever and whatever does that now--and it is not we the people.

Granted some may be influenced more than others and Obama's promise is a positive step because we have to agree on issues more than we have to back particular persons. Issues-based organizations are more important to me than political candidates.

But until the people get it together democracy is doomed-we can only hope the next president will deign to run goverment the way it is intended.

[Dems Will Win]

14. You have to understand the context this answer was given.

It was a response to a question about what you would do in your first term and all the candidates were talking about "their" cabinet and actions they would take.

For Obama, it was FIRST end the war. SECOND was review all the signing statements and rule/operational changes of the Bush/Cheney Debacle.

[texpatriot2004]

13. He's not my first choice but I like him and this is a very good

reason to vote for him.

[msongs]

15. attention Mr.Obama - ALL signing statements are unconstitutional if ACTED upon.

the US constitution does not give Obama/Bush any authority to enact signing statements. The role assigned to the president is to enact laws as passed OR veto them. A president can write all the signing statements he/she wants for PR purposes but trying to enforce or enact them is an impeachable offense.

Msongs

[Me.]

16. Sorry But This One Won't Fly As Far As I'm Concerned

Obama certainly had me concerned about his expertise when he said no to impeachment because it should be reserved for the gravest acts. He had me flummoxed at the time and I still don't understand what could be graver than the criminal acts of the */Cheney admin.

[jobendorfer]

17. okay, think about this

Here's what worries me, even though Obama's heart may be in the right place.

Hypothetically assume 1) Obama wins the election, 2) fulfills his promise and reverses the bush signing statements. What you have there is one President asserting Presidential power to overturn or reverse signing statements made by a former President. The risk here -- and maybe I'm being paranoid -- is that this leaves the door open for assertions of signing statements by future Presidents, in acting this way Obama would set a precedent, only Presidents can make or unmake signing statements.

What would be MUCH better, IMHO, is for the Congress or the court system, to declare that "signing statements" are legally, just hot air, with no force in law, and may not be used to force the behavior of executive branch employees in directions that violate laws passed by Congress or rulings made by the courts. (Of course this requires a Congressional leadership with a spine, and courts that aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of NeoCon, Inc.)

In other words, wipe out the Bush era signing statements by saying that Presidents can't do that, period, and never could. What Obama is promising here sounds to me like, "I can undo what Bush did", which carries the implication that some future psycho President could undo Obama's undoing.

I'm a software head who dabbles in physics, any lawyers out there who could tell me if I'm being too crazy here?

J.

[Dems Will Win]

19. You're wrong and here's why:

Signing statements are supposed to be interpretations of law when the law itself is not clear on how the Exceutive Branch is to carry out legislation. They are not supposed to be outright negations of new laws, which most of Bush's were.

Trying to undo them through Congress is not therefore possible, as the President runs the Executive Branch. They would also all still be on the books.

Obama has to sit down with the new Attorney General and go over all laws and signing statements and undo many with his own signing statements, re-interpreting the Bush interpreation.

Only and FASTEST way it can be done.

[jobendorfer]

21. wow

Am I reading you right, that the Congress or the Courts have nothing to say about signing statements,
that *only* Presidents can make or unmake them?

That scares the bejeezus out of me.

J.

[Dems Will Win]

26. They could pass laws undoing specific signing statements, but not a single law banning them

never been done. BUt undoing 1100 signing statements would take a decade if ever passed. Easier and faester for Obama to reverse them with new signing statements.

[MNDemNY]

27. The courts have YET to rule on"signing ststements"

CWis that they are not legal.

[madokie]

18. good to read

[suston96]

20. "The Constitutional Law Expert that wants to REVERSE unconstitutional Bush signing statements.

Uh, signing statements can be "reversed"? How is that done? And has it ever been done?

I have heard of Executive Orders being repealed or reversed, and I believe that Executive Orders is what Obama was talking about. But signing statements which have little, if any, executive standing and are at most opinions on a particular bill being signed or vetoed, are never "reversed".

[Igel]

28. They have standing in that they

state how the executive branch will construe the provision of a law, or whether it considers the law to be unconstitutional and therefore not subject to implementation.

After all, the president--whoever s/he is--is the chief authority in the executive branch.

Signing statements form something akin to part of the legislative history, in that the SCOTUS can refer to them if it has a tough job figuring out what the language of a law was intended to actually mean. But the chief executive can simply issue an order stating how the provisions of a law will *now* be interpreted: If it's different from how a previous prez interpreted it, so be it. Not a Big Deal, unless it was a provision that was both far-reaching and previously construed to be unconstitutional.

And in many cases the signing statement is actually a bit of legal craftiness: It essentially stipulates that rather than implementing a law or a provision because Congress requires it, it protests that Congress has no authority to impose it and at the same time says the executive will voluntarily implement it. "Estoppal" is the word that comes to mind.

In other cases--one from a week or two comes to mind--the signing statement took issue with detailed instructions provided by Congress on how to structure the following year's budget presentation. It basically said, "You'll include X under category Y, and provide Z numbers of copies of these charts, formatted in this way", and * said, "Nope." Now, *why* he said nope is a mystery to me: Was he basically saying that since he's told to present a budget, he's got the authority to present it however he wants to? That it's silly having a law stipulate how many copies of charts making specific comparisons, when the numbers are already sitting in a block of paper in front of the House's staffers and they can figure out what they want, so the House can't give orders to the prez's staff? Dunno. Seemed not earthshaking, however the imperiousness of it seemed over the top (and I saw quotes here about it, outrage, but no explanation as to what, actually, they meant--I want to know what I'm supposed to be outraged about, knee-jerk outrage strikes me as silly in and of itself).

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see if some of the signing statements being revoked would open (or close off) routes to legislation, esp. if they revoke language that purported to resolve legislative ambiguity. By the way, in a fairly high percentage of the ones I've read, there *has* been such language; and the ambiguity was clearly identified.

I've read dozens of the damned things from start to finish, chosen mostly at random. Small sample, but most have been absurdly boring, a few mystifying. Of the thousand issued, a few passages in a dozen statements have been deemed important; that tells you something right there.

[suston96]

29. Thanks, igil. The Constitution and the enacted laws of the land ....

...are executable. Signing statements are not.

Signing statements have as much executable authority as, and can be nicely compared to, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings about the new US Constitution during its ratifying period.

If anyone can enlighten me on this, please feel free.

As a good Constitutional scholar, Professor Obama would never have said that he would "reverse signing statements."

[State the Obvious]

22. This belongs on homepage "Greatest Threads" nt

[immoderate]

24. If he really knows the Constitution, he would push for impeacment.

--IMM

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Two small points:

re: "I don't know if we have had a president that knows as much about the founding document as he does."

Two very small points:

1) A deep understanding of the Constitution is a very good thing, but Obama is not unique in that respect in the current field. Joe Biden has taught constitutional law since 1991, in addition to 35 years of practical experience on the judiciary committee.

2) Thomas Jefferson probably knew more about the founding document than anyone currently running

[Dems Will Win]

32. kick

[autorank]

33. University of Chicago, very impressive. Did he teach on this topic:

Article I, Section 2

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[Flabbergasted]

34. Go O! nt

[diane in sf]

35. I can endorse this!