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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mrs. Clinton kills John Roberts, too? :eek:
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.
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?
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.
I believe that a fair number of posters here would applaud that hypothetical action.
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? 
“…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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
<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 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.
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.
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.