Bush claims that he and he alone determines constitutionality of laws

The BBQ Pit
1

We knew he was doing this to some extent, but here are some details:

Internation Herald Tribune

In summary

Basically, instead of vetoing, he just has a “signing statement” written up that says in essence “I don’t have to follow this law.” In at least one case, he reserved the right to violate every single provision of the law.

This delightful practice was started with Reagan in the mid-80s, and has been used to a far more limited extent by subsequent presidents (yes, Clinton did it too). But no one has done it on the scale of this administration.

Bricker, Shodan, Mr Moto, and other Bush supporters, can you give me any reason other than sheer political power that a president, *any * president, should be able to do this?

Oh, and since I’m in the Pit, fuck!

2

Well, the obvious answer is that ‘power corrupts’. I would not put it past this president to set aside the restriction of two terms of office in 2008, claiming that there is a national emergency because of the war in (pick a Middle-Eastern nation), or to even go so far as to suspend elections, knowing that he couldn’t get re-elected now even if he could prove to be the second coming. This administration clearly knows no bounds of shame, arrogance and manipulation of process.*

*Obligatory pre-emptive note: but…but…but…Clinton blahblahblahblah.

3

[QUOTE=Chefguy]
I would not put it past this president to set aside the restriction of two terms of office in 2008, claiming that there is a national emergency because of the war in (pick a Middle-Eastern nation), or to even go so far as to suspend elections, knowing that he couldn’t get re-elected now even if he could prove to be the second coming.
[/QUOTE]
I’m as left-wing as they ome, but… you don’t really think that, do you? No way it would happen.

4

I’m not going defend Bush’s practice, but I will point out that your thread title is grossly inacurate. Has Bush ever refused to go by the SCOTUS’s interpretation of a law? This is a power struggle between Congress and the President. And while it might differ in degree from what other presidents have done, I’m not sure it differs in kind. I haven’t looked in detail at the signing statements from Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan to see how they compare (have you?), and maybe a close examination would turn up a difference in kind. I will say that it does seem extremely odd that a President whose party controls both Houses of Congress should have to interpret out so many parts of so many bills.

On a side note, has any of Bush’s signing statments been invalidated by the SCOTUS? I don’t think so, but that would be an interesting data point.

5

[QUOTE=Chefguy]
Well, the obvious answer is that ‘power corrupts’. I would not put it past this president to set aside the restriction of two terms of office in 2008, claiming that there is a national emergency because of the war in (pick a Middle-Eastern nation), or to even go so far as to suspend elections, knowing that he couldn’t get re-elected now even if he could prove to be the second coming. This administration clearly knows no bounds of shame, arrogance and manipulation of process.*
*Obligatory pre-emptive note: but…but…but…Clinton blahblahblahblah.
[/QUOTE]

Uh, if he was going to suspend elections, wouldn’t he have done so back in 2004?
:dubious:

6

[QUOTE=John Mace]
On a side note, has any of Bush’s signing statments been invalidated by the SCOTUS? I don’t think so, but that would be an interesting data point.
[/QUOTE]

I’m mildly bewildered by this question. How would a signing statement be invalidated? A signing statement is equivilant to a line-item veto, which is not constitutional. The President either signs a law as passed by the Congress, or he doesn’t. Signing statements are legally meaningless.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to duck and cover from the influx of lawyers to this thread.

7

I am about as right wing as they come, and I have to say that our current idiot in charge is the most currupt lying sob I have seen in my lifetime. It is not a proud time to be a republican. If fact I think I am getting a little green

8

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not going defend Bush’s practice, but I will point out that your thread title is grossly inacurate. Has Bush ever refused to go by the SCOTUS’s interpretation of a law? This is a power struggle between Congress and the President. And while it might differ in degree from what other presidents have done, I’m not sure it differs in kind. I haven’t looked in detail at the signing statements from Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan to see how they compare (have you?), and maybe a close examination would turn up a difference in kind. I will say that it does seem extremely odd that a President whose party controls both Houses of Congress should have to interpret out so many parts of so many bills.

On a side note, has any of Bush’s signing statments been invalidated by the SCOTUS? I don’t think so, but that would be an interesting data point.
[/QUOTE]

Well, certainly FISA has been validated by The Supremes (hasn’t it?), and W has shown not the slightest hesitation in not only ignoring it, but refusing to disclose any little minor details such as just who he’s spying on or why it’s beneficial to not require permission. Or how many cases we’re talking about or whether or not it’s actually led to any information of value beyond the political - do you doubt that there has been spying on Democrats and other “political enemies,” given the record for honestly and forthrightness the administration has demonstrated?

Also, Affirmative Action has been validated by SCOTUS (I’m pretty sure) and apparently Bush feels no obligation to violate that. The Whistle-Blowers Protection Act? I don’t know if it’s been validated, but I have trouble imagining objections on constitutional grounds.

[QUOTE=chefguy]
I would not put it past this president to set aside the restriction of two terms of office in 2008, claiming that there is a national emergency because of the war in (pick a Middle-Eastern nation), or to even go so far as to suspend elections, knowing that he couldn’t get re-elected now even if he could prove to be the second coming. This administration clearly knows no bounds of shame, arrogance and manipulation of process.
[/QUOTE]

Helen’s Eidolon, I feel fairly confident that this will not happen, because it would require a lot more support than the administration currently has, *not * because they wouldn’t willingly do it if they could. And if they manufactured sufficiently nasty a terrorist event shortly prior to elections (and no, I don’t think 9/11 was faked, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of people in the world who could be bribed to commit some real nastiness - hell, some would pay for the privilege!), I could see them giving it a shot. It is to be hoped, if such a thing were to happen, that the administration would show the same competence level in planning and preparation as they have done thus far, and therefore be found out quite readily.

9

[QUOTE=seenidog]
I am about as right wing as they come, and I have to say that our current idiot in charge is the most currupt lying sob I have seen in my lifetime. It is not a proud time to be a republican. If fact I think I am getting a little green
[/QUOTE]

Just bear in mind that he has been ably assisted by the Republican House (and to a lesser extent the Senate). Try to bear it in mind when you’re voting this year. Is a $300/year tax cut *really * worth that much to you?

10

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Well, certainly FISA has been validated by The Supremes (hasn’t it?), and W has shown not the slightest hesitation in not only ignoring it, but refusing to disclose any little minor details such as just who he’s spying on or why it’s beneficial to not require permission.
[/quote]
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the Constitutionality of FISA, mostly because no case has come to them about it. The courts that have ruled on FISA, likewise, have not specifically addressed the issue of its Constitutionality, mainly because no prior administration took the position that it was unconstitutional. In fact, the DOJ when FISA was enacted took the position that it was constitutional, and every court ruling on FISA has assumed its Constitutionality.

Of course, this admininstration, rather than arguing it’s constitutionality in Court or trying to change the law, just ignored it, violated it, and did so secretly. President Bush not only claimed that he could, unilaterally, determine the Constitutionality of FISA, but then went ahead and violated the law after making his own determination. And his supporters seem to think this is OK until SCOTUS tells him he can’t. Seems the title of the thread is pretty accurate, at least in that one case.

11

[QUOTE=seenidog]
I am about as right wing as they come, and I have to say that our current idiot in charge is the most currupt lying sob I have seen in my lifetime. It is not a proud time to be a republican. If fact I think I am getting a little green
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, me too.

12

[QUOTE=threemae]
Yeah, me too.
[/QUOTE]

Then, darn it, *vote * that way! The House has done as much to enable this guy as he has done himself.

13

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Then, darn it, *vote * that way! The House has done as much to enable this guy as he has done himself.
[/QUOTE]

threemae (assuming an accurate location) lives in a Democratic safe seat for the House. There is no Senate election in Colorado this year.

I, of course, will be pleased if threemae votes for Ritter for Governor, but that, unfortunately, will have no effect at the national level.

14

[QUOTE=Frank]
threemae (assuming an accurate location) lives in a Democratic safe seat for the House.
[/QUOTE]

I’d like to add that even Democrats in Colorado refer to “The People’s Republic of Boulder”.

15

Amusingly, it’s been pointed out that the Vice President not only will not follow laws of Congress, but it won’t even follow executive orders from its own President.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0604300395apr30,1,5984422.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

So, not only has this administration been astronomically more secretive than any previous one (even before 9/11), but parts of it refuse to even tell anyone HOW secretive it’s being.

16

Anyone else getting “plausible deniability” off of Apos’ story?

17

[QUOTE=Frank]
I’m mildly bewildered by this question. How would a signing statement be invalidated? A signing statement is equivilant to a line-item veto, which is not constitutional. The President either signs a law as passed by the Congress, or he doesn’t. Signing statements are legally meaningless.
[/QUOTE]

No. Take the torture issue. Suppose you were the victim of torture. You take Bush (or the responsible party) to court and challenge the action. It works its way up to the SCOTUS just like any other case. And singing statemets aren’t legally meaningless. You seem to assume that everyone would interpret evey law exactly the same way. Not so. In fact, the Supremes would likely take the sigining statement into account during in their deliberations-- not that it would be binding, but it would be one piece ofinformation they would use.

I guess Bush just go off and do whatever he wanted without saying anything. At least he’s given us a heads up of what to expect. :slight_smile:

18

[QUOTE=John Mace]
In fact, the Supremes would likely take the sigining statement into account during in their deliberations-- not that it would be binding, but it would be one piece ofinformation they would use.
[/QUOTE]

To your knowledge, have they ever?

19

It seems to me that the correct remedy is a constitutional amendment that says the president can’t attach signing statements.

I think it sucks that that would be necessary, since when the president does that, inasmuch as it’s more than nothing, it’s either legislating or interpreting law, or both.

20

[QUOTE=Oy!]
This delightful practice was started with Reagan in the mid-80s, and has been used to a far more limited extent by subsequent presidents (yes, Clinton did it too). But no one has done it on the scale of this administration.

[/QUOTE]

“John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.” -President Andrew “old Hickory” Jackson said after the Supreme Court ruled that forcing the Cherokees from their land was illegal in Worcester v. Georgia.
Not exactly the same, but it’s not really new ground we’re breaking with Reagan either.