Don’t Rely on Bush’s Signing Statements, Obama Orders

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=1

<snip>
Mr. Bush frequently used signing statements to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, claiming that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a torture ban and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counter-terrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.

Dating back to the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. Presidents began doing so more frequently starting with the Reagan administration.

But Mr. Bush broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 bill sections over his eight years in office — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

Many of Mr. Bush’s challenges were based on an aggressive view of the president’s power, as commander-in-chief, to take actions he believed necessary to protect national security regardless of what Congress said in federal statutes.

His use of signing statements prompted widespread debate. The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers,” calling on Mr. Bush and all future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto.

....more

[polichick]

1. It's sickening that the most ignorant president in history claimed the most power.

[indepat]

7. Those having/claiming total power since the 1930s have given the world countless tens

of millions of deaths through invasions and occupations or ruthless annihilation at home, not to mention the vast carnage and destruction that necessarily follow. :P

[polichick]

8. So ignorance loves power. :)

[geek tragedy]

2. Signing statements are so ove-hyped.

They're essentially glorified press releases from the Executive stating his/her understanding of the bill when signing it. They are have no legal force whatsoever.

[av8rdave]

3. My understanding of signing statements is that their original intent

was to allow a President to state his interpretation of the intent of a bill (or part thereof) if there was a possibility it would be challenged in a court case.

What * did, as he did with nearly everything, was to completely misuse them.

[annabanana]

4. Exactly... they were to register a difference of opinion.. not a statement

declaring that the President did not intend to administer the law!!

[geek tragedy]

5. The problem was Bush's stated intention to place himself

above the law.

Now, to a certain degree there are always going to be disputes as to what Congress can tell the Executive what to do, but Bush essentially said that Congress had no authority over him.

[av8rdave]

6. I agree...like I said, * totally misused siging statements

He essentially believed, as I'm sure his minions told him, that he had the powers of a dictator.