[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I agree completely with you here. There has to be some form of noncompliance with the law resulting from the signing statement for it to be legally actionable. After all, Saying Bad Stuff isn’t a crime in and of itself, thanks to the First Amendment.
[/QUOTE]
The question is not whether it is a crime for W to write a signing statement but whether he can, thereby, excuse himself for not following the legislation as written. That might well come up, especially where the legislation mandates troop withdrawal. But I agree, until there is some specific concrete action/inaction, such a case would not be ripe for action. I recall a story from ConLaw, no cite: President Washington sent a proposed treaty over to the SCOTUS for an advisory opinion on its constitutionality. They rebuffed him, saying in effect, we can’t do that, we’re a court of law; we can only make constitutional or legal rulings in connection with an actual case in controversy before the court.
Well, the question really is, at what point of his intended malfeasance does he cross the line?
Let’s say the law said, all troops out by December. His signing statement said he felt he would ignore it where it crossed upon the executive department.
Let’s say that he takes the money instantly. If he takes money, while declaring intentions to ignore parts of a law, has he performed fraud or other malfeasance?
Let’s say that, logistically, the troops have to start leaving by June 15th, to be all out by December 31st. Bush issues no orders for troops to be withdrawn. Is he doing something wrong on June 15th?
What if he issues specific orders for troops to stay, or orders more troops in?
What if a condition of the money is to have a plan for the withdrawl on June 15th?
At what point are clear intentions to violate the conditions under which he accepted money, a violation of the conditions?
Hm. What other possibilities are there?
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Well, the question really is, at what point of his intended malfeasance does he cross the line?
Let’s say the law said, all troops out by December. His signing statement said he felt he would ignore it where it crossed upon the executive department.
Let’s say that he takes the money instantly. If he takes money, while declaring intentions to ignore parts of a law, has he performed fraud or other malfeasance?
Let’s say that, logistically, the troops have to start leaving by June 15th, to be all out by December 31st. Bush issues no orders for troops to be withdrawn. Is he doing something wrong on June 15th?
What if he issues specific orders for troops to stay, or orders more troops in?
What if a condition of the money is to have a plan for the withdrawl on June 15th?
At what point are clear intentions to violate the conditions under which he accepted money, a violation of the conditions?
Hm. What other possibilities are there?
[/QUOTE]
Since the complainant would be Congress, and the complaint would consist of articles of impeachment, the answer is that Bush would cross the line when Congress decided he did.
Bush doesn’t “accept” or “take” the money – he can’t refuse it if an appropriations bill has been enacted. The President is required to execute the funding in the same way that he is supposed to execute any other law.
If the law didn’t say something about troops beginning to leave on June 15th, but merely required all troops to be out by December 31st, then June 15th is a meaningless date. If Congress wanted to require that troops start leaving on June 15th, they should have specified that in the law.
I submit that I cannot conceive of a scenario in which the President commits a crime by intending (or “conspiring” if you wish) to ignore a troop withdrawal date. I think he would actually have to violate a provision of the spending bill in order to have done something wrong.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Erm, perhaps this is being taken for granted, but I think a major point that has not been mention is that signing statements, in and of themselves, are, IMHO, legally meaningless if the President actually follows the law.
For example, if Congress passed a law saying, all US troops out in 90 days, and the President signed it with a statement declaring, “I’m not bound by this law!!!1!” but he then goes ahead and withdraws the troops, I don’t see that there’s any basis for a lawsuit.
If the President fails to carry out the law, signing statement or no, then there’s a plenty good case for a lawsuit (which could very well go nowhere in our courts) or, even better, impeachment.
In other words, I don’t think the President simply asserting a power that I believe is unconstitutional is a strong basis for a lawsuit. He should do something wrong first.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. And I think the proper course of action if the prez declines to follow the law laid out by Congress (to Congress’ satisfaction) is for Congress to impeach him.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I agree. And I think the proper course of action if the prez declines to follow the law laid out by Congress (to Congress’ satisfaction) is for Congress to impeach him.
[/QUOTE]
But that wouldn’t bring the constitutional question of the legal effect of signing statements before the courts – would it? And legally speaking, whatever decision Congress makes on that point would have no precedential value.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
IANAL, but here’s how I understand it: if a Presidential signing statement appeared to conflict with the meaning of the statute as passed by Congress and signed by the President, and a private individual was negatively affected by the Executive Branch’s reliance on the interpretation in the signing statement, that individual could sue in Federal court to resolve the matter.
[/QUOTE]
Unless the “negative effect” is that the individual isn’t allowed rightful access to the courts. Ain’t that a bitch?
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Rufus, are you sure the only complataint is Congress?
[/QUOTE]
Again, IANAL, but in the example that you gave, I’m pretty sure. Here’s my reasoning:
Who would have a cause to sue on or immediately after June 15th in your example? No particular soldier would, because nobody could prove that he was supposed to be among the first guys out. If they can’t sue, how about you or me as citizens and taxpayers? Sorry, the courts would say: in that capacity, you’re represented by those guys in Congress. But thanks for playing.
Anyone else you think might have standing? I can’t think of anyone.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
If the law’s being followed, why attach signing statements?
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that a President should not be allowed to comment on the substance of a bill he is signing into law?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Are you saying that a President should not be allowed to comment on the substance of a bill he is signing into law?
[/QUOTE]
Not if he “comments” on it in such a way as to indicate that the law doesn’t apply to him or his decisions, or to contravene the spirit of the bill, no.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Not if he “comments” on it in such a way as to indicate that the law doesn’t apply to him or his decisions, or to contravene the spirit of the bill, no.
[/QUOTE]
Educate me here… don’t the signing statements comment as to the constituionality of the law from the Executive’s point of view?
Surely they aren’t simply… “We’re not going to do it…nah,nah,nah ,nah, nah!”
If the former, isn’t it just being up front about the normal process of governement?
Should/can the Executive Branch sue over the constitutionality instead (basically the opposite of what Pelosi is threatening).
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Not if he “comments” on it in such a way as to indicate that the law doesn’t apply to him or his decisions, or to contravene the spirit of the bill, no.
[/QUOTE]
Every President since 1973 has questioned the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act, even though they have not violated it. Not one President has said that he has taken a military action “pursuant” to the War Powers Resolution.
Are you saying that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush should be subject to punishment because they questioned the legality of the War Powers Act, and not one of them has acknowledged that the President is bound by that law, even though they have acted consistent with it? What punishments should have been applied to all of those Presidents?
Are you saying that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush should be subject to punishment because they questioned the legality of the War Powers Act, and not one of them has acknowledged that the President is bound by that law, even though they have acted consistent with it? What punishments should have been applied to all of those Presidents?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying at all.
I read someplace (can’t find it now) that no President has written as many signing statements as Bush. Frankly, I don’t care whether the Pres has the right to interpret bills the way he wants through signing statements or not- I just want their legality to be determined.
The question isn’t whether Bush has the broadest possible view of executive powers. I wouldn’t put up a fight on that.
I’m just not getting what the problem you’re trying to fix is: if the President is following the law, what is the problem with signing statements? Other than disagreeing with the content, what is the constitutional or legal issue at play here on which a court would be expected to rule on the matter of signing statements?
Is Pelosi supposed to sue in order to silence this and future Presidents from providing his views of the law? Can signing statements be made if the content is not at variance with congressional intent; and if so, does that mean that statements of administration policy (issued before a bill is passed by Congress) might also be unacceptable? Is she supposed to sue in order to limit the number of signing statements a President can issue? I’m just not following what the issue is here.
(Let’s take as a starting point that a signing statement was issued on such-and-so bill, but the provisions of the bill seem to be being carried out by the executive branch. We’ve all agreed that if the law isn’t being carried out, of course there are consequences.)
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Is Pelosi supposed to sue in order to silence this and future Presidents from providing his views of the law?
[/QUOTE]
No, but she might get a definitive ruling that presidential signing statements are legally meaningless when a court comes to interpret the statute in question; also, that an administration accused of unlawful conduct cannot use signing statements as part of its defense.