Signing statements are not supposed to have authority. They are intended to identify the ways in which the administration has interpreted the law that is being signed when that administration goes forth to execute the law.
Generally, this is a good thing. However, Bush has used the signing statements as a way to avoid veto battles; he simply signs the bills into law, then adds a little “interpretation” that indicates he has no intention of actually carrying out the will of Congress that he has just signed into law. The issue is not new and various legislators (on both sides of the aisle) have been complaining about those actions for three or more years.
What has brought this to a head has been the specific ban on torture. The White House spent weeks arguing strongly against the legislation that outlawed torture. Once the law had been passed (with a veto-proof majority), Bush signed it into law, but added a “signing statement” that indicated that he was the President and we were going to torture who we damned well wanted to torture.
Given the overwhelming opposition to torture by Congress (where even those decision dodgers recognize that torture is ineffective as a tool of intelligence but is a superb weapon as a tool for propaganda–by the enemy), Bush’s decision to go ahead and torture people (while denying that we do what we clearly do) has finally moved some members of Congress to raise their heads and wonder whether they have let him go too far for too long.
The Executive has broad authority, normally, to enforce laws or not depending on its judgment. That authority is limited only by the checks and balances provided by the other 2 branches, but of course only if they choose to exercise it.
Given that the Supremes have never ruled, or even been asked to rule, that they have any significance in actually determining the meaning of the law until now, and even so only 3 of the putatively-conservative Justices on a packed court are willing to create such a legal theory out of thin air, the answer would seem to be No. But that hasn’t seemed to have had any actual effect on the situation of the “detainees” at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, has it? tom, 3 years or 6 months, what’s the diff in determining “newness”? It’s only been in this administration, and well into it at that, that anyone ever brought the subject up. Have we become so jaded about Bush’s attempts to recreate the “Imperial Executive” for which Cheney and Rumsfeld are so nostalgic that we can only be shocked by the *latest * manifestations of it?
With the issue making it more into the mainstream media in the last few months, some folks have questioned why it is “suddenly” a problem. My only point was that the issue is only new to the popular media, not new to the Congress.
Who is asking the SCOTUS to rule on them now? No one, AFAIK. And quit making up shit about the “conservative justices”. As I already pointed out, Scalia’s comment in that dissent was not to elevate the signing statements to the level of Congessional floor speaches but to demote their usage to that level-- something the court should not look at because he thinks it is more likely to produce a “false or contrived legislative intent.”
Also, note that the SCOTUS has referenced signing statements in their rulings before (US v Lovett, 1946, for example) although they haven’t (and shouldn’t, IMO) consider them binding. You clearly don’t understand Scalia’s textualist judical philosophy if you think he would create a legal theory to give presidential signing statements the force of law. He may, in some instances, agree with the president’s interpretation of the Constitution wrt executive authority, but that’s another issue entirely. Bottom line, though, Scalia has repeatedly rejected the use of “legislative history” to determine the intent of a particular law, prefering to find it “from the intent that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris.”
This ground has already been covered pretty thoroughly in the 2 other threads that **BG **started on the exact same subject-- the ones he linked to in his OP. Gfactor, in particular, produced a lot of good cites about signing statements as well as some insight into Scalia’s poistion in posts such as this one from the second thread referenced in the OP.
I think a conservative taking on this cause is a new development whether he advances any new arguments are not. What new arguments are there to be made?
And why do you keep saying this thread is pointless? If the subject no longer interests you, why bother posting in it?
Only that I can’t think of him ever going against W on anything important, starting with the 2000 election. He even (with Alito and Thomas and nobody else) dissented from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld – based on the motherfucking flatly unconstitutional Detainee Treatment Act! :mad:
The DTA’s constitutionality was not being challenged, so I hope that you, as a lawyer, are not suggesting that the SCOTUS should have declared it unconstitutional. The justices wer only asked to determine if the act applied to Mr. Hamdan or not (since that law was passed after they had decided to hear his case). Scalia has ruled against Bush often enough that I find your assessment of him without merit. Read his scathing remarks in *Hamdi *if you need some evidence.
Since you recently started 2 virtually identical threads on this subject, I think it’s reasonable to ask what the difference with this one is. Perhaps you think if you keep asking the same question often enough you’ll get the answer you want?
I certainly do suggest that. If the Act had any bearing on the case at all, then the court – any court – had the discretion to rule it unconstitutional sua sponte, even without motion by either side’s counsel. That’s how Justice Marshall resolved Marbury vs. Madison (the origin of the whole “judicial review” doctrine) – by declaring the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional even though neither Marbury nor Madison had argued that.
So, why didn’t the majority rule the DTA unconsitutional then? And how many times has the court acted, sua sponte, as you suggest they should have here? Seems to me your issue on this matter is with the entire SCOTUS, not with Scalia alone. Are they all “whores”? I didn’t see one word in the majority decision or any concurring decision about the constutionality of the DTA. You don’t like Scalia’s judicial philosoph? Fine. But throwing out specious arguments like you have here only speaks to your inability to support the claims you are making about how might or might not rule on any particular issue.
I would think it a very reckelss thing to act, sua sponte, on the constitutionality of a bill. If the court is going to address that aspect, one would expect them to allow the executive and/or legislative branch to present arguments supporting their belief in the constitutionality of the bill. Since it wasn’t being chalenged by the other side, they would have no reason to do so on their own.
But le’t not hijack this thread. I’m interested in seeing all these new ideas about signing statements that have surfaced in the last 2 months.
Not new ideas, just new realizations. (Like I said, what new ideas could there be?) Perhaps some conservatives are finally confronting the fact that if Bush gets away with this, so could a future Dem president. Might even get away with ignoring the dictates of a Pub Congress explained very clearly and plainly in the bill.
And new ideas aren’t the only just grounds for a new thread on a not-so-new topic. Keeping memes alive (at least within the DopeSphere) is also an important consideration!
I hope even John Mace will acknowledge this is a significant new development.
BTW, John: If you try to tell us one more time that a subject is not worth a new GD thread because it’s been done before and there’s nothing new to be said, I will expect you to join me in demanding the mods institute a blanket instant-threadlock ban on all GD threads relating to abortion, gun control, or evolution vs. creationism.
That’s really a stunning finding by the American Bar Association Task Force! For the record, the task force has eleven members including former FBI Director William Sessions (who is also a former federal judge), a founding Trustee of the Heritage Foundation, a Harvard law professor, a former U.S. Attorney, and a former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
A couple of excerpts from the article about their findings will help to explain why many of us have found this subject to be worthy of more than one or two threads:
How far into unchecked executive power are you willing to follow this man?
Don’t know much about this, and haven’t seen any of the signing statements (does he scribble notes in the margin with a pen, or what?) This, and your previous post are an enlightening explanation, though.
I confess to finding an admirable forthrightness in this. Most of the time when people intend to have their cake and eat it too, they don’t advertise the fact or state their intention.
I’d place this action above simply ignoring or subverting a piece of legislation he secretyly disagree with and a step below actually saying what he means from the start and vetoing legislation he disagreed with.
You know how it is, when you’re really in the mood to torture, nothing else will do. Heh.
I am not American, and have only recently heard about these signing statements. What amazes me is that its seems like the world’s greatest democracy has a pseudo-dictator at the reins, who likes to quietly “interpret” laws that he doesn’t like so that they have no real meaning or force.
Seems to me like the Middle-Eastern approach to running a country is rubbing off on you, rather than the other way around!
Just another example of Spectre going through some political posturing, nothing more. Bet it gets quietly defanged before it’s actually put to a vote, or just dropped all together.
