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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
Oh.
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?
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.
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.
I see. So your post #22 was merely a pitiable abortion of a hijack.
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.)
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).
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.
It’s not legally enforceable. It’s not an “official” part of the law.