Can/should/will Pelosi sue Bush over a "signing statement"?

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

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.

I’m puzzled. Are you saying that right now they ARE meaningful wrt the law and its interpretation?? Is the currently (or past) administrationusing them as part of a defense??

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

I’m puzzled. Are you saying that right now they ARE meaningful wrt the law and its interpretation??

The law is indeterminate on that point.

@xtisme

Is the currently (or past) administrationusing them as part of a defense??

No past admin has. With the current one, it’s always a possibility. Don’t forget, this is an administration brazen enough to say things like “Congress has no oversight” WRT the Justice Department.

[elucidator]

And I, amongst others, find this whole Bushivik flirtation with such concepts as the “unitary executive” more than a little worrisome. I would be happy to dismiss such worries as liberal paranoia, but then there was a time I would not have easily believed them capable of leading us to war on the basis of lies. Every time I think that their civic villainy is exaggerated, they prove me wrong.

[What_the]

@ElvisL1ves

Afraid so.

Looks to me like John Dean’s article lacks any specfic reference to any of his signing statements and the related laws. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If so many and so wrong why hasn’t somebody taken the issue to the Supreme Court up to now?

[elucidator]

They don’t want to lose. Especially before a SC that seems to show a nod and a wink comfort with an authoritarian sensibility, a sensibililty that holds that all three branches of government are equal, but the executive is just a bit more equal than the others, especially in times of crisis and war. What, then, is to prevent some scoundrel from declaring a vague and amorphous “war” on some ill-defined enemy, for no other purpose than an immoral grasp for power?

I know, seems rather hypothetical, in our present happy state, but still…

[ElvisL1ves]

@What the .... ?!?!

Looks to me like John Dean’s article lacks any specfic reference to any of his signing statements and the related laws. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Bush’s favorite word in stating that he’ll refuse to “faithfully execute the laws,” as he took an oath to do, is purport, as in “what this bill purports to do”.

One example

Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.

The law, Bush wrote, ``purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

Another

A proviso in the Act’s appropriation for “Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide” purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

IOW, “Fuck you, I’M The Decider”.

Some more

The executive branch shall construe section 1936(d)(2) of the Social Security Act as enacted by section 6034 of the Act, which purports to make consultation with a legislative agent a precondition to execution of the law, to call for but not mandate such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution’s provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

and

Subsection 1304(a) of the Act amends section 550 of Public Law 109-102 to purport to require the President to consult with committees of the Congress prior to exercising authority granted to the President by section 550. Subsection 1304(b) purports to require the Secretary of State to consult such committees prior to exercising authority under that provision. Because the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive
decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the references in the provisions to consulting to require only notification.

If so many and so wrong why hasn’t somebody taken the issue to the Supreme Court up to now?

It’s a lot harder to take an administration to task for lack of action than for action.