Bush still appending "signing statements" to new laws saying he won't obey them

[BrainGlutton]

In a thread in January, we discussed the Bush Admin's use of "presidential signing statements" added when Bush signs new legislation, stating how the Admin interprets the law and what language it does or does not intend to respect: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667

He's still doing it. In March, when Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT ACT, he "included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/ (Registration required but free.)

Bush has added such it-don't-apply-to-me statements to 750 bills he has signed as president -- an unprecedented 1 out of 10. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Three Senate Democrats -- Kennedy, Reid and Leahy -- have called him on it. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3_democrats_slam_president_over_defying/ Nevertheless, except for the Boston Globe, which broke the stories linked here, the mainstream media curiously have ignored this. http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020011

Does anyone care to defend what Bush is doing here, or argue he has the constitutional authority?

[Sal Ammoniac]

I don't know why this isn't an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office. We have an entire branch of government to decide on the constitutionality of the laws -- and it ain't the executive branch.

[BrainGlutton]

I don't know why this isn't an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office.

Because he's only making a statement? It wouldn't become an offense until he actually follows up on his stated intention to disobey/disregard something in the bill.

[Sal Ammoniac]

My impression is that he has defied the law, in the instance that I'm recollecting by refusing to provide Congress with information, as provided for in the law. (I don't have the cite handy, but will look for it later). Besides, I'm not sure what the point would be of issuing a signing statement and then going ahead and following the law anyway.

[BrainGlutton]

Besides, I'm not sure what the point would be of issuing a signing statement and then going ahead and following the law anyway.

Well, it's conceivable that the clause to which the prez objects applies to a situation that never actually comes up during his term.

[John Mace]

I don't like it, but I pretty much said everything I wanted to say in the Pit Thread (especially before it disintegrated into a debate about gay marriage).

[Menocchio]

I don't know why this isn't an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office. We have an entire branch of government to decide on the constitutionality of the laws -- and it ain't the executive branch.
Actually, it kind of is. All three branches should be concerned about the constitutionality of laws. If the president believes part of a law is unconstitutional, then he should veto the law. The entire law. Another option would be to sign the law, but immediately send things to the court (I'm not sure how he'd do this without breaking the law first, but there could be a way, at the very least he could create a test case with a small, public, infraction). He has options availiable to him.

What the president cannot do is simply refuse to obey a law.

[BrainGlutton]

Another option would be to sign the law, but immediately send things to the court (I'm not sure how he'd do this without breaking the law first, but there could be a way, at the very least he could create a test case with a small, public, infraction).

No cite, but I recall from a Con Law class that George Washington once sent a proposed treaty to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on its constitutionality. He was rebuffed -- they told him, in effect, we don't do that; as a court of law, we can only decide constitutional/legal questions when ruling on actual cases-in-controversy before the court.

[ASAKMOTSD]

I forget - regarding invasion of a foreign country based on false pretenses - is that a high crime or is that a misdemeanor? Is it worse if you make the call to do so with an intern under your desk - or does that matter?

[rjung]

I forget - regarding invasion of a foreign country based on false pretenses - is that a high crime or is that a misdemeanor? Is it worse if you make the call to do so with an intern under your desk - or does that matter?
It's acceptable only if you're a Republican.

[Der Trihs]

I don't know why this isn't an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office.Like rjung says, it's because he's a Republican. A Democrat who acted like Bush would have been impeached long ago.

[Shodan]

Like rjung says, it's because he's a Republican. A Democrat who acted like Bush would have been impeached long ago.
Well, you're both wrong, obviously, since Democrats have done the same thing and weren't impeached for it.

Regards,
Shodan

[MMI]

Well, you're both wrong, obviously, since Democrats have done the same thing and weren't impeached for it.

Regards,
Shodan


Is that the same thing as in

"Democratic presidents have issued signing statements - indicating questions or disagreement with some portion of legislation, (possibly in line with Supreme Court judgements)"

or

"Democratic presidents have issued signing statements broadly at odds with legislation, such as rejecting Congressional authority to issue laws explicitly denying the president permission to send troops into combat in specified countries with which we are not at war"

[BrainGlutton]

Well, you're both wrong, obviously, since Democrats have done the same thing and weren't impeached for it.

True that Dem presidents have used "signing statements" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Presidential_usage:

Starting with James Monroe, U.S. Presidents have issued signing statements. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits or prohibits this, aside from the specific executive responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements. [2]

A November 3, 1993 memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.[1]


But not like W has -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_Signing_Statements:

Critics observe that George W. Bush has often issued signing statements, detailing how the executive branch will construe legislation. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses them as line item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.[3]

Bush supporters note that previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. However, George W. Bush has issued over 500 signing statements containing at least 750 challenges.[2][2]

One of the signing statements which has attracted most controversy is the signing of the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody:

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

Since, under the "Unitary Executive" theory, the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law regarding the manner in which the President acts pursuant to executive authority, some critics argue that the President has with that statement reserved the right to waive the "torture ban."[4]

This goes way beyond Clinton's position. Bush is actually claiming legislative authority in his own right, beyond the veto, and that's not constitutional.

[Shodan]

True that Dem presidents have used "signing statements" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Presidential_usage:

But not like W has -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_Signing_Statements:

This goes way beyond Clinton's position. Bush is actually claiming legislative authority in his own right, beyond the veto, and that's not constitutional.
No, he isn't, so no, he's not.
"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

No, he isn't, so no, he's not.

Google "weasel-words."

And what exactly are these "constitutional limitations on judicial power"?

[Taran]

So...what? He wrote that in order to claim that he'd do the exact thing he swore in his oath of office to do? I think Bush is an idiot, so I at least have some way of explaining a thing like that, but how do you explain it?

More generally: if the president's prerogative powers as defined in article 2 always take precedence over laws passed by Congress, how can Congress limit the president's power? Is there any way? If not, what checks the president's authority?

[Hamlet]

And what exactly are these "constitutional limitations on judicial power"?"I'll do whatever I want until the Supreme Court tells me otherwise. Then, and only then, I might, maybe, if I'm feeling like a uniter and not a divider, I'll stop on my own accord, but only because I want to."

That's just my guess.

[Hung Mung]

More generally: if the president's prerogative powers as defined in article 2 always take precedence over laws passed by Congress, how can Congress limit the president's power? Is there any way? If not, what checks the president's authority?
Balls. We suffer from a lack thereof.

[Hamlet]

Oh, and to add more than a drive by, but well deserved, potshot at our President, I'll add some interesting articles prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (in prior years, so it may not reflect the views of the current administration).

Signing Statements in General (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm)

Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm)


They're actually brief and pretty well written, which is strange for government attorneys.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Good cites there from Hamlet. It's clear that the practice of the executive disregarding laws that restrict the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch has a lot of precedent and history. But there's clearly a question of scale and scope here. Bush has issued at least 750 of these signing statements, vastly more than any other president. Here's an example quoted from the Boston Globe:

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
This is really a reach here. The Constitution emphatically does not give the executive responsibility for "foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch." To argue that it does is to argue for an elasticity in the Constitution that would stagger those liberal jurists accused of "legislating from the bench."

For reference, here's what the Constiution does say about the duties of the executive branch:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed [bolding mine], and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
This is the totality of his responsibilities, except for his veto power and a couple of other minor things.

[Bricker]

So a "Living Constitution" isn't the model we wish to follow, right?

I mean, here you are quoting the text of the Constitution and suggesting that the text, and only the text, be used to determine its meaning.

I'm all about that.

But only if you're willing to use that yardstick all the time. It seems a trifle unfair to insist now that the text is the beginning and end of what the Constitution means, and then turn around and support the penumbras and emanations when you like what they deliver.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Bricker, give me an example here of a penumbra or emanation that you don't like, as a point of discussion.

[John Mace]

Oh, and to add more than a drive by, but well deserved, potshot at our President, I'll add some interesting articles prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (in prior years, so it may not reflect the views of the current administration).

Signing Statements in General (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm)

Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm)


They're actually brief and pretty well written, which is strange for government attorneys.
I scanned the first cite, but it seems to me to support what Bush is doing, not undermine it. For us legally challenged posters, can you quote the section of that cite which argues against what Bush is doing (if that was your purpose in giving those cites)?

[John Mace]

Bricker, give me an example here of a penumbra or emanation that you don't like, as a point of discussion.
You can't be serious...

[Sal Ammoniac]

I am serious. And lazy. I thought it'd be quicker for Bricker to give me a top-of-mind example than for me to pore through hundreds of previous threads.

[Bricker]

Bricker, give me an example here of a penumbra or emanation that you don't like, as a point of discussion.

Sure.

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Apparently, that language prevents a state from making sodomy illegal.

Now, don't claim it's wise to make sodomy illegal -- don't get me wrong.

But to point at that language and claim that it creates a penumbra of general protections that specifically include the right to commit sodomy is crazy.

[spazattak]

Why?

[spazattak]

Let me add to that 'why?' - Its not the right to commit sodomy that its creating. Its preventing the government from creating laws that prevent citizens from excersizing their liberties, one of which would be sodomy between consenting adults.

[Hamlet]

So a "Living Constitution" isn't the model we wish to follow, right?

I mean, here you are quoting the text of the Constitution and suggesting that the text, and only the text, be used to determine its meaning.

I'm all about that.

But only if you're willing to use that yardstick all the time. It seems a trifle unfair to insist now that the text is the beginning and end of what the Constitution means, and then turn around and support the penumbras and emanations when you like what they deliver.As predictable, irrelevant, and simpleminded as usual, Bricker. It's nice I have you to count on.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Bricker, I'm armored in this instance by the fact that I've never argued, on these boards or anywhere else, that sodomy is protected by the 14th Amendment. Which is a lawyerly way of saying that I have no views on the subject, because I don't really know the issues in that case. But that said, it does strike me that arguing that "the equal protection of the laws" covers the right to commit sodomy is still less penumbral than arguing that being Commander in Chief = responsibility for national security, or that limited treaty-making authority = responsibility for all foreign affairs. Especially if this interpretation is construed as overriding the Exective's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

[Kimstu]

Good lawsy, and here comes the gay marriage debate again. Does it have a special affinity for executive-signing-statement threads, or what? :confused:

[BrainGlutton]

So a "Living Constitution" isn't the model we wish to follow, right?

I mean, here you are quoting the text of the Constitution and suggesting that the text, and only the text, be used to determine its meaning.

I'm all about that.

But only if you're willing to use that yardstick all the time. It seems a trifle unfair to insist now that the text is the beginning and end of what the Constitution means, and then turn around and support the penumbras and emanations when you like what they deliver.

:dubious: And how exactly does this irrelevant to quoque shit constitute a defense (or condemnation) of what the Bush Admin is doing with its "signing statements"?

[Sal Ammoniac]

As predictable, irrelevant, and simpleminded as usual, Bricker. It's nice I have you to count on.
I disagree completely. It's entirely relevant to this argument what our general views on the Constitution are -- whether we're going to cleave to the language of the document, or allow for some latitude. I'm at least a little bit latitudinarian myself, but Bush has gone way beyond my comfort zone.

[Hamlet]

I scanned the first cite, but it seems to me to support what Bush is doing, not undermine it. For us legally challenged posters, can you quote the section of that cite which argues against what Bush is doing (if that was your purpose in giving those cites)?The cites were not provided to show that what Bush is doing is wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional, but rather to share some information I found helpful in understanding the issues surrounding signing statements.

Personally, I find nothing inherently wrong with signing statements. I'm much more concerned with what any President says, I'm much more interested in what they do. If he follows through with his signing statements, for example if he refuses to provide Congress with the statements regarding the Patriot Act as the statute requires, that's when I have a problem. Although the signing statements are good indications of his intent to violate the law, I'm more concerned about the times he does. Not that I expect Congress to do much of anything about it, though.

[Hamlet]

The cites were not provided to show that what Bush is doing is wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional, but rather to share some information I found helpful in understanding the issues surrounding signing statements.

Personally, I find nothing inherently wrong with signing statements. I'm NOT much concerned with what any President says, I'm much more interested in what they do. If he follows through with his signing statements, for example if he refuses to provide Congress with the statements regarding the Patriot Act as the statute requires, that's when I have a problem. Although the signing statements are good indications of his intent to violate the law, I'm more concerned about the times he does. Not that I expect Congress to do much of anything about it, though.Sorry for any confusion.

[Bricker]

:dubious: And how exactly does this irrelevant to quoque shit constitute a defense (or condemnation) of what the Bush Admin is doing with its "signing statements"?

It's relevant because I believe many of you coming down on the side of "Bush is evil for disregarding the text of the law" in this instance have an entirely different view of the value of text when it cuts against issues you support. If that is true, then it calls into question your actual commitment to "text of the law." it suggests that "text of the law" is simply a convenient peg for you to hang your hat on for this issue, to pretend that your ire arises from a neutral desire to defend the law as opposed to a partisan desire to not see the law bent in this precise way.

If that is the case, I believe it would be honest for you to argue just that: (1) I'm OK with bending the law, because I believe in a Living Constitution, but (2) THIS PARTICULAR BENDING is unwise, because (a), (b), and (c) reasons. Thsi would allow the debate to focus on your true objections.

By instead arguing that the text is sacrosant, you can attack Bush's actions without having to defend your real objections - you instead must defend the relatively unassailable ground that the law means what the law means. But since you don't actually believe that, it seems dishonest to advance it here and then abandon it when it no longer suits your desired ends.

[BrainGlutton]

Personally, I find nothing inherently wrong with signing statements. I'm much more concerned with what any President says, I'm much more interested in what they do. If he follows through with his signing statements, for example if he refuses to provide Congress with the statements regarding the Patriot Act as the statute requires, that's when I have a problem. Although the signing statements are good indications of his intent to violate the law, I'm more concerned about the times he does. Not that I expect Congress to do much of anything about it, though.

Well, I think the point is to prepare the ground for a court battle. This way, if the Admin is caught violating a specific requirement of a statute enacted during Bush's presidency, they can say, "Well, the president told you so when he signed it, and his constitutional position is correct, so nyah!" Then it goes to the courts -- where there is some precedent for giving weight to a presidential signing statement as part of a bill's "legislative history." (See thread linked in OP.)

[Bricker]

Bricker, I'm armored in this instance by the fact that I've never argued, on these boards or anywhere else, that sodomy is protected by the 14th Amendment. Which is a lawyerly way of saying that I have no views on the subject, because I don't really know the issues in that case. But that said, it does strike me that arguing that "the equal protection of the laws" covers the right to commit sodomy is still less penumbral than arguing that being Commander in Chief = responsibility for national security, or that limited treaty-making authority = responsibility for all foreign affairs. Especially if this interpretation is construed as overriding the Exective's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

Oh, it's "less penumbral," eh?

Well, then I guess you want "more penumbral."

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

'(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

'(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

That's required by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, is that less or more of a jump than concluding that the single position identified as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and the one who makes treaties and appoints ambassadors to be the person responsible for national security. The very reason for the existence of the army and the navy is to provide for national security. The guy in charge of them is thus in charge of national security. That's a very tight, reasonable leap.

Compare that to a vague reference to "liberty" being construed as requiring pregnancy to be viewed in trimesters, with the first trimester utterly unsubject to government regulation. That may be a wise decision, but it's by no means a interpretation that comes from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment - is it?

[bup]

Oh, it's "less penumbral," eh?

Well, then I guess you want "more penumbral."



That's required by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, is that less or more of a jump than concluding that the single position identified as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and the one who makes treaties and appoints ambassadors to be the person responsible for national security. The very reason for the existence of the army and the navy is to provide for national security. The guy in charge of them is thus in charge of national security. That's a very tight, reasonable leap.

Compare that to a vague reference to "liberty" being construed as requiring pregnancy to be viewed in trimesters, with the first trimester utterly unsubject to government regulation. That may be a wise decision, but it's by no means a interpretation that comes from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment - is it?Let me turn it around, Bricker - I know from other threads that you would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and all states make abortion illegal. If you believe what the president is doing is legal, then how do you justify being a literalist with respect to the abortion debate, but a loose constructionist when it comes to a president altering laws as he signs them?

[BrainGlutton]

Let me turn it around, Bricker - I know from other threads that you would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and all states make abortion illegal. If you believe what the president is doing is legal, then how do you justify being a literalist with respect to the abortion debate, but a loose constructionist when it comes to a president altering laws as he signs them?

Unfortunately, Bricker does not have to answer that because he has, up to now in this thread, failed to show the courage to actually take a stand for the latter position.

[zamboniracer]

It's relevant because I believe many of you coming down on the side of "Bush is evil for disregarding the text of the law" in this instance have an entirely different view of the value of text when it cuts against issues you support. If that is true, then it calls into question your actual commitment to "text of the law." it suggests that "text of the law" is simply a convenient peg for you to hang your hat on for this issue, to pretend that your ire arises from a neutral desire to defend the law as opposed to a partisan desire to not see the law bent in this precise way.
<snip>



Please forgive the drive by, but what the above argument says, Bricker, is that you doubt your opponents' credibility. That's nice, but since their credibility isn't at issue your position viis a vis their crediibility is irrelevant, isn't it? Or are you saying that people can only rely on the text of the constitution to support their own arguments if and when they signed on to your 18th century opinion of what the plain text means for any and all circumstances? That's consistent with your position, isn't it?

[Kimstu]

It's relevant because I believe many of you coming down on the side of "Bush is evil for disregarding the text of the law" in this instance have an entirely different view of the value of text when it cuts against issues you support.

I dunno, I think there may be a more important factor you're overlooking here: namely, the issue of who's doing the interpreting of the text.

It's one thing to argue that the Supreme Court ought to be able to make decisions about constitutionality, even of issues that aren't explicitly discussed in the Constitution. But it's quite another to argue that the President gets to decide what is or is not constitutional for him to do.

AFAIK, not even the most wild'n'crazy liberal anti-Originalists believe that just anybody is entitled to set their own rules about constitutionality. And AFAICT, even the President is essentially just another anybody as far as that's concerned.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Now, is that less or more of a jump than concluding that the single position identified as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and the one who makes treaties and appoints ambassadors to be the person responsible for national security. The very reason for the existence of the army and the navy is to provide for national security. The guy in charge of them is thus in charge of national security. That's a very tight, reasonable leap.
Well, that's certainly what that Administration would argue, but is that what you would argue?

To me you've got the penumbra of a penumbra problem here -- that is, the Administration is arguing that a) it has sole authority for national security and foreign relations, and b) that it has the authority not to faithfully execute the laws of the U.S. where they pertain to either of those domains, as defined solely by the Executive. To me that's two logical leaps, as against one in the abortion example you cite -- about which, again, I don't have a strong or informed opinion, at least as it relates to the 14th Amendment.

[BrainGlutton]

AFAIK, not even the most wild'n'crazy liberal anti-Originalists believe that just anybody is entitled to set their own rules about constitutionality. And AFAICT, even the President is essentially just another anybody as far as that's concerned.

Well, that's the nut of the knot, to mix metaphors. Looked at one way a presidential signing statement is a legal opinion about a bill's constitutionality; looked at another way it is a legislative-policy decision, a line-item veto over certain of the bill's provisions; and the Admin can argue from either theory according to the needs of the moment; and in either case, the SC might give the signing statement some weight as "legislative history" as noted above.

[SuaSponte]

More generally: if the president's prerogative powers as defined in article 2 always take precedence over laws passed by Congress, how can Congress limit the president's power? Is there any way? If not, what checks the president's authority?
Easily, at least in theory: if the President is doing something Congress doesn't like, Congress can always cut the funding for that activity. Don't like the war in Iraq? Don't pass the resolutions providing funds for the military's activities there? Don't like domestic wiretapping? Cut the funds to the NSA that they use for the wiretapping. If the President shifts over other NSA funds to pay for the wiretapping, simply completely disfund the NSA.

Congress has the ultimate power over the President - the "power of the pursestrings". Any action by the President, even if its is fully and unarguably within the President's legislative or constitutional perogative, can be prevented by Congress by the simple act of refusing to provide funds to allow the President to perform the action.*

That this doesn't happen is a matter of political impossibility, not legal.

Sua

*This is a broad statement, and may not be completely accurate. I am unaware of any Presidential activity Congress is obliged to fund, but I admit I've done no research on it.

[Hamlet]

It's relevant because I believe many of you coming down on the side of "Bush is evil for disregarding the text of the law" in this instance have an entirely different view of the value of text when it cuts against issues you support. Please expound. I see no one questioning the value of text. If a statute says it is illegal to wiretap United States citizens, it's illegal to wiretap US citizens.

If that is the case, I believe it would be honest for you to argue just that: (1) I'm OK with bending the law, because I believe in a Living Constitution,And, once again, you completely misstate the beliefs of non-textualists. For roughly the 20th time, you try and make it appear that anyone who disagrees with your method of constitutional interpretation doesn't believe the importance of text to interpretation. But why should I expect you to pay attention to that now.

By instead arguing that the text is sacrosant, you can attack Bush's actions without having to defend your real objections - you instead must defend the relatively unassailable ground that the law means what the law means. But since you don't actually believe that, it seems dishonest to advance it here and then abandon it when it no longer suits your desired ends.Text does not have to be sacrosant to condemn this President, nor is it even slightly dishonest to believe the President violating the law is wrong. You've repeatedly create this bogeyman, even when it is completely irrelevant to the topic, to try and bolster a position that is indefensible. It's sad really.

[SuaSponte]

It's one thing to argue that the Supreme Court ought to be able to make decisions about constitutionality, even of issues that aren't explicitly discussed in the Constitution. But it's quite another to argue that the President gets to decide what is or is not constitutional for him to do.
I don't quite agree. Both Congress and the President should make decisions about whether their proposed legislation or actions, respectively, are constitutional. It would be a sad state of affairs if both said, "who cares if it's constitutional? That's for the courts to decide." 'Course, the courts can overrule them.

The real problem I personally have with signing statements is that a President shouldn't sign an act that he believes is unconstitutional, in whole or in part. He should veto them, instead of trying to play both ends against the midde with signing statements.

And if he does sign it, he damn well better execute all of it.

Sua

[John Mace]

The cites were not provided to show that what Bush is doing is wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional, but rather to share some information I found helpful in understanding the issues surrounding signing statements.

Personally, I find nothing inherently wrong with signing statements. I'm much more concerned with what any President says, I'm much more interested in what they do. If he follows through with his signing statements, for example if he refuses to provide Congress with the statements regarding the Patriot Act as the statute requires, that's when I have a problem. Although the signing statements are good indications of his intent to violate the law, I'm more concerned about the times he does. Not that I expect Congress to do much of anything about it, though.
OK. That's pretty much my position. It's too bad we only "discovered" signing statments in the last few months. Lots of people seem to think Bush invented them, and they are bad, per se.

BTW, this was the source of the confusion:

well deserved, potshot at our President

[Bricker]

Let me turn it around, Bricker - I know from other threads that you would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and all states make abortion illegal. If you believe what the president is doing is legal, then how do you justify being a literalist with respect to the abortion debate, but a loose constructionist when it comes to a president altering laws as he signs them?

I don't believe what the President is doing SHOULD be legal -- that is, if my wishes were followed, a President should simply veto a law he found unconstitutional on its face. If a law were passed over his veto that he believed unconstitutional, then he should disobey that law in order to force a quick judicial determination, and then abide by that determination. In these specifc instances, the President is interpreting the Constitution too loosely for my liking, and I do not believe he is correct.

[bup]

OK. That's pretty much my position. It's too bad we only "discovered" signing statments in the last few months. Lots of people seem to think Bush invented them, and they are bad, per se.

BTW, this was the source of the confusion:It's true I was unaware of them. Perhaps they were evil in the hands of former presidents, perhaps not - I don't think that matters though. What I see is either something illegal, or if it is legal, something being grossly abused. Perhaps some signing statements are legal and others are not (if they go beyond interpretation to legislation, for instance).

In any event, though, I think they need to stop now, because the ones I've read read pretty plainly as the president dismissing inconvenient parts of laws.

Start a movement to make an amendment banning them. The president either signs a bill or he doesn't.

[bup]

I don't believe what the President is doing SHOULD be legal -- that is, if my wishes were followed, a President should simply veto a law he found unconstitutional on its face. If a law were passed over his veto that he believed unconstitutional, then he should disobey that law in order to force a quick judicial determination, and then abide by that determination. In these specifc instances, the President is interpreting the Constitution too loosely for my liking, and I do not believe he is correct.Oh.

[John Mace]

It's true I was unaware of them. Perhaps they were evil in the hands of former presidents, perhaps not - I don't think that matters though. What I see is either something illegal, or if it is legal, something being grossly abused. Perhaps some signing statements are legal and others are not (if they go beyond interpretation to legislation, for instance).

In any event, though, I think they need to stop now, because the ones I've read read pretty plainly as the president dismissing inconvenient parts of laws.

Start a movement to make an amendment banning them. The president either signs a bill or he doesn't.
That wouldn't solve anything. Regardless of whether or not you think Bush is interpretting these laws way to loosely (in favor of his own authority), you will never get the point where the President knows exactly how a statute needs to be interpreted. If that were the case, we wouldn't need judicial review.

Look at it this way. Bush is going to do what he wants to do no matter what. Isn't it better that we see in advance what he plans to do with the laws rather than have him just off and do it without telling us?

[Bricker]

Please forgive the drive by, but what the above argument says, Bricker, is that you doubt your opponents' credibility. That's nice, but since their credibility isn't at issue your position viis a vis their crediibility is irrelevant, isn't it? Or are you saying that people can only rely on the text of the constitution to support their own arguments if and when they signed on to your 18th century opinion of what the plain text means for any and all circumstances? That's consistent with your position, isn't it?

Their credibility is at issue. It's not equitable to claim that the text is the sole meaning when it supports your position and then renounce that claim when it does not help you. It permits them to gain the benefits of the position in one debate but dodge the implications of that position in the next debate.

[Bricker]

Please expound. I see no one questioning the value of text. If a statute says it is illegal to wiretap United States citizens, it's illegal to wiretap US citizens.

In this argument, no. We have a thread full of committed textualists here today. No one is questioning the value of text.


And, once again, you completely misstate the beliefs of non-textualists. For roughly the 20th time, you try and make it appear that anyone who disagrees with your method of constitutional interpretation doesn't believe the importance of text to interpretation.

It's as plain as the nose on your face. If you subscribe to the notion that the text is used in any way other than simply reading it fairly, without finding hidden emanations or penumbras, then you have abandoned the use of JUST the text. You're adding something to the mix. This is not a misstatement of the beliefs of non-textualists. IT'S WHAT THEY DO.


Text does not have to be sacrosant to condemn this President, nor is it even slightly dishonest to believe the President violating the law is wrong. You've repeatedly create this bogeyman, even when it is completely irrelevant to the topic, to try and bolster a position that is indefensible. It's sad really.

On the contrary. If you support adding emanations to the text for your cause, but refuse to permit it here, that's simply dishonest. If you think the President is wrong BECAUSE he's violating the text of the law, that is. You are of course welcome to say he's wrong not because he's violating the text of the law, but wrong because of the particular violations he has chosen. That is a perfectly defensible and honest position.

[BrainGlutton]

I don't believe what the President is doing SHOULD be legal -- that is, if my wishes were followed, a President should simply veto a law he found unconstitutional on its face. If a law were passed over his veto that he believed unconstitutional, then he should disobey that law in order to force a quick judicial determination, and then abide by that determination. In these specifc instances, the President is interpreting the Constitution too loosely for my liking, and I do not believe he is correct.

I see. So your post #22 was merely a pitiable abortion of a hijack.

[zamboniracer]

Their credibility is at issue. It's not equitable to claim that the text is the sole meaning when it supports your position and then renounce that claim when it does not help you. It permits them to gain the benefits of the position in one debate but dodge the implications of that position in the next debate.

And so you are compelled to disagree with them and to insist that they are wrong because they happen to agree with your method of interpretation in this particular instance? And such great debater's can only satisfy the Bricker credibility test by swearing allegiance to Bricker's 18th century strict contructionist interpretation of the constitution?

(I think I'll skip the Bricker credibility test. Playing against a stacked deck never appealed to me.)

[bup]

In this argument, no. We have a thread full of committed textualists here today. No one is questioning the value of text.



It's as plain as the nose on your face. If you subscribe to the notion that the text is used in any way other than simply reading it fairly, without finding hidden emanations or penumbras, then you have abandoned the use of JUST the text. You're adding something to the mix. This is not a misstatement of the beliefs of non-textualists. IT'S WHAT THEY DO.



On the contrary. If you support adding emanations to the text for your cause, but refuse to permit it here, that's simply dishonest. If you think the President is wrong BECAUSE he's violating the text of the law, that is. You are of course welcome to say he's wrong not because he's violating the text of the law, but wrong because of the particular violations he has chosen. That is a perfectly defensible and honest position.Well, in one case (the loose constructionist), one says that the literal text is true, as well as implications of it. Thus, the TRUTH is a superset of the statement.

In the other, they're saying that the signing statement is a contradiction of the literal text. It's in the set (not literal text), rather than in a set (containing literal text).

[E-Sabbath]

My question remains, and I apologize if this was answered, but I missed it...

How is this signing statement different from a line-item veto in any meaningful way?

We are sure a line-item veto is unconstitutional.

[bup]

My question remains, and I apologize if this was answered, but I missed it...

How is this signing statement different from a line-item veto in any meaningful way?It's not legally enforceable. It's not an "official" part of the law.

[John Mace]

My question remains, and I apologize if this was answered, but I missed it...

How is this signing statement different from a line-item veto in any meaningful way?

We are sure a line-item veto is unconstitutional.
Is Bush saying he will ignore parts of a law and that it doesn't apply to anyone? I don't think so. For instance, does Bush claim that the torture ban doesn't apply to anyone at all?

Mainly, the signing statements say that he will interpret the law to mean "such and such". In some cases it might be functionally equivalent, but I don't think it is even in the majority of cases.

[BrainGlutton]

My question remains, and I apologize if this was answered, but I missed it...

How is this signing statement different from a line-item veto in any meaningful way?

We are sure a line-item veto is unconstitutional.

The difference is that a line-item veto, if it were constitutional, would have a clear and unambiguous legal effect. Whereas if the president ratifies a bill while expressing his reservations in a "signing statement," the bill goes into the U.S. Code or whatever entirely as written, while the Admin has merely stored up some ammunition in case its actions/inactions lead to a court challenge or a showdown with Congress. See posts #38 and 45.

[Hamlet]

It's as plain as the nose on your face. If you subscribe to the notion that the text is used in any way other than simply reading it fairly, without finding hidden emanations or penumbras, then you have abandoned the use of JUST the text. You're adding something to the mix. This is not a misstatement of the beliefs of non-textualists. IT'S WHAT THEY DO.Saying the same thing over and over does not make it true, no matter how you try. Non-textualists do not subscribe to the notion that the text can be read "unfairly", they include a reading of the text, and interpret from there. If the Constitution said: "There is no right to consensual sex among consenting adults", and then SCOTUS said there is, you would have a point. But that's not what is going on, regardless of how you try and spin it.

On the contrary. If you support adding emanations to the text for your cause, but refuse to permit it here, that's simply dishonest. If you think the President is wrong BECAUSE he's violating the text of the law, that is. You are of course welcome to say he's wrong not because he's violating the text of the law, but wrong because of the particular violations he has chosen. That is a perfectly defensible and honest position.Nobody denies the President has the power to intercept foreign communications, but that is not in the text of the Constitution. Would a textualist deny the existance of that power? No. As you said earlier, although not in the Constitution, it is a power that stems from the President's powers as Commander in Chief. That is a "emanation" of the text that is reasonable, and widely agreed upon. So, there are "emanations" that a textualist will accept. A great many believe that the President has the power to intercept foreign communication, but that he may not do so for communications of US citizens, in part because Congress has passed a law that says it is illegal to do so. There is not dishonesty there, only a rational interpretation of the Constitution and the law.

[Bricker]

I see. So your post #22 was merely a pitiable abortion of a hijack.

No.

Here is that post:

So a "Living Constitution" isn't the model we wish to follow, right?

I mean, here you are quoting the text of the Constitution and suggesting that the text, and only the text, be used to determine its meaning.

I'm all about that.

But only if you're willing to use that yardstick all the time. It seems a trifle unfair to insist now that the text is the beginning and end of what the Constitution means, and then turn around and support the penumbras and emanations when you like what they deliver.


It's not a hijack. It's designed to uncover what the real objection is to the President's conduct.

Thought experiment:

Mrs. Clinton runs and is elected. The Congress remains in the hands of the GOP. The Alito Court gets a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they do.

The GOP Congress leaps on the chance, and passes a law that no federal funding can be used under any circumstances to procure or perform an abortion, and that any organization that does so is not eligible for any federal grants. President Clinton says she will not enforce that provision of law.

Is she a hero or a zero?

[bup]

Mrs. Clinton runs and is elected. The Congress remains in the hands of the GOP. The Alito Court gets a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they do.

The GOP Congress leaps on the chance, and passes a law that no federal funding can be used under any circumstances to procure or perform an abortion, and that any organization that does so is not eligible for any federal grants. President Clinton says she will not enforce that provision of law.

Is she a hero or a zero?She should either veto it or sign it and act by it. So in your example she's a zero. Admittedly, it's tempting to want her to ignore it, but it'd be wrong. She signed the damned thing.

[John Mace]

Mrs. Clinton runs and is elected. The Congress remains in the hands of the GOP. The Alito Court gets a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they do.
Mrs. Clinton kills John Roberts, too? :eek:

[Loopydude]

The difference is that a line-item veto, if it were constitutional, would have a clear and unambiguous legal effect. Whereas if the president ratifies a bill while expressing his reservations in a "signing statement," the bill goes into the U.S. Code or whatever entirely as written, while the Admin has merely stored up some ammunition in case its actions/inactions lead to a court challenge or a showdown with Congress.

Seems the unambiguous legal effect is "Such-and-such does not apply to the Executive branch." My understanding is these signing statements, at least as currently applied, are de facto Executive-specific line-item vetos (their status de jure is, of course, the subject of debate), per the theory of "Unitary Executive". IOW, whether or not a law is "constitutional" depends on who the law is being applied to.

[E-Sabbath]

Precisely my point, Loopydude. Assume a law was passed that said, "The American Government will not use torture." The signing statement said, "This law does not apply to the executive branch." Isn't that the same as writing the bill himself, if it is allowed to have any legislative force?

[Loopydude]

Being nowhere near an authority on Constitutional Law, to me it looks like it depends. In some instances it's a "line-item", in others it's maybe more of a selective veto. Perhaps it's not so much writing the law, as negating all or portions of laws if and when they apply to the Executive. Nothing new is being created (except maybe a new breed of "Unitary Executive"), but rather, using the anti-torture law example, a new restriction is being nullified, restoring the original state of ambiguity.

[Bricker]

She should either veto it or sign it and act by it. So in your example she's a zero. Admittedly, it's tempting to want her to ignore it, but it'd be wrong. She signed the damned thing.

I believe that a fair number of posters here would applaud that hypothetical action.

[SteveG1]

Mrs. Clinton kills John Roberts, too? :eek:
I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that specifically says she couldn't, but then there are already municipal and state laws that say killing is bad (unless she claims "powerful executive" privileges). Roberts make Clinton mad. Clinton smash. You wanna slap me now, or later? :D

[Zoe]

"...and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend..." (wink, wink)

I don't care how many presidents have done it. It is misleading as hell.

What puzzles me is why GWB has found the need to "cross his fingers" on mainly Republican legislation a record number of times. Is he that much out of step with his own party?

Bricker, I would not support Hillary Clinton's indulging in a "signing statement." I don't think that most liberals or Democrats would like the signing statement shell game even for liberal causes. I prefer the old-fashioned balance of power.

John Mace: Look at it this way. Bush is going to do what he wants to do no matter what. Isn't it better that we see in advance what he plans to do with the laws rather than have him just off and do it without telling us?

It's amazing that we have been reduced to this.

[John Mace]

It's amazing that we have been reduced to this.
Maybe I wasn't clear, becuase that wasn't the point of my post. I wasn't suggeting that we should just resign ourselves to the situation. Not in the least. I just wanted to point out that banning signing statements is not the way to fix the underlying problem. In fact, it will make things worse.

[Taran]

I believe that a fair number of posters here would applaud that hypothetical action.You may well be right, but it doesn't seem fair to compare the hypothetical actions of hypothetical people with the real actions of real ones and claim some kind of equivalence based on that.

As for the underlying issue (that you can't be both for a living Constitution and against this new improved signing statement), doesn't it make a difference that the Supreme Court's rule is to interpret the law of the land, while the Executive's role is to, well, execute it? If the Constitution should be re-interpreted in light of modern circumstances (and reasonable men can disagree on that IMO), shouldn't the Supreme Court be the group to do it? Is there some aspect of the issue that I'm missing?

SuaSponte: That's an aspect I hadn't considered. Thanks. Does Congress often refuse to fund presidential actions it disapproves of? I tried to google for some example references, but all I could find were stacks of people telling Congress what it ought to quit funding.

[E-Sabbath]

As I recall, the... god, now I've forgotten the name. The database on all citizens the NSA was going to build? The one where it was going to encourage people to narc on their neighbords for justice? TIA. That's it. Congress refused to fund it.
A month ago, it was revealed that it was funded anyhow through different offices.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16741&ch=infotech

[Guinastasia]

As I recall, the... god, now I've forgotten the name. The database on all citizens the NSA was going to build? The one where it was going to encourage people to narc on their neighbords for justice? TIA. That's it. Congress refused to fund it.
A month ago, it was revealed that it was funded anyhow through different offices.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16741&ch=infotech


Hey, wasn't that partly what got them in trouble in the Iran-Contra scandal? (Although in that case there was a law forbidding funding to the contras, I'm wonder if this would still be illegal?)

[Digital Stimulus]

As I recall, the... god, now I've forgotten the name. The database on all citizens the NSA was going to build? The one where it was going to encourage people to narc on their neighbords for justice? TIA. That's it. Congress refused to fund it.
A month ago, it was revealed that it was funded anyhow through different offices.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16741&ch=infotech
<South Park Saddam>
Hey, relax guy! Look over there!
</SPS>

More seriously, no -- it had nothing to do with Iran-Contra, but was totally due to 9/11. (More can be found at the EPIC TIA (http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/) page.) In fact, if I was to hazard a guess, it would be (at least related to) the underlying reason for the NSA wiretapping. Nothing like progress in data-mining tech to make your civil liberties day...

[bup]

<South Park Saddam>
Hey, relax guy! Look over there!
</SPS>

More seriously, no -- it had nothing to do with Iran-Contra, but was totally due to 9/11. (More can be found at the EPIC TIA (http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/) page.) In fact, if I was to hazard a guess, it would be (at least related to) the underlying reason for the NSA wiretapping. Nothing like progress in data-mining tech to make your civil liberties day...No, Guin means wasn't using funding designated for one purpose for another a large part of the Iran-Contra scandal?

Nobody's saying the NSA initiative is due to Iran-Contra.

[Digital Stimulus]

No, Guin means wasn't using funding designated for one purpose for another a large part of the Iran-Contra scandal?

Nobody's saying the NSA initiative is due to Iran-Contra.
Oh. If that's the case, sorry for my misunderstanding.

But it did give me the chance to reference both South Park and EPIC, so I consider it an excusable mistake.

[BrainGlutton]

No.

Here is that post:



It's not a hijack. It's designed to uncover what the real objection is to the President's conduct.

Thought experiment:

Mrs. Clinton runs and is elected. The Congress remains in the hands of the GOP. The Alito Court gets a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they do.

No, it is a hijack, as the second sentence clearly demonstrates. Look, we all have are pet hobbyhorses. Whenever anything related to electoral reform comes up, I jump in and mention that there are options available (proportional representation, etc.) to make the system more fair, democratic and multipartisan. Just for one or two posts, for the sake of meme-propagation. But I don't hammer it into the ground. You, Bricker, are so obsessed with abortion that you try to hijack every discussion of constitutional interpretation into a debate on Roe v. Wade. Please cease and desist forthwith and forevermore.

[ElvisL1ves]

That post also shows that he already is sure he knows what the "real" objection to Bush's actions is. It simply cannot be a genuine concern about separation of powers and the rule of law in a democratic republic, no, it can only be simple reflexive partisanship by habitual Bush-bashers.

[Shodan]

And since he is quite correct....

[Taran]

Since you've got some spare time, Shodan, any thoughts on my questions of post #74?

[Hamlet]

And since he is quite correct....And when you're done with Taran, could you offer up a defense of the NSA surveillance and Bush's statement that he will violate parts of Patriot II. You know, add something positive to a debate for once.

[Guinastasia]

Oh. If that's the case, sorry for my misunderstanding.

But it did give me the chance to reference both South Park and EPIC, so I consider it an excusable mistake.


Yeah, sorry, that was what I meant-in both cases, Congress refused to provide funding for a specific program, and the administration just found another way to pay for it.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has decided to confront Bush over this issue and at least demand an explanation: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/05/10/bush_vs_congress/

Meanwhile . . . It still appears only the Boston Globe is giving the story the coverage it merits. Well, the Boston Globe and Steven Colbert.