Don’t be so sure. Remember, every one of Bush’s signing statements was attached to a bill approved by a Republican-controlled Congress. You think the Pubs in Congress like that? At this point, I expect a lot of them are going to start thinking less of party loyal and more of institutional loyalty.
Sadly, I’ll bet Specter’s bill lives and dies depending on who wants to grab coattails in an elction year, and who wants to distance themselves. Not a real poll on issues, just how they each feel their campaign will be best suited. I’m thinking a lot of “don’t rock the boat THAT hard” -ers… “I want to distance myself from George but not sue him.”
They can grumble all they like, but until they actually start acting like a separate branch of government and not just a bunch of whores, it’s all bupkis.
Just as a reminder, Spectre was also the same “independent” Republican whose proposed “compromise” with the Bush Administration over illegal wiretaps was to (a) make the mandatory requirement that Bush submits the program for court approval optional, and (b) give them amnesty for having already broken the law.
I have a question, in light of the Ban on Torture issue. Do Presidential signing statements legally carry any more weight/exception in time of war; are they given more credence as to special Presidential powers under wartime? Very curious about this.
No one knows.
Prior to this administration, signing statements were used to indicate how an administration intended to carry out the law. If the Congress found the signing statement to be too much of a deviation from the law that they felt thay had passed, they had the option of passing a new law that was more explicit in ordering the executive to carry out a specific task. Reagan and his Congresses played that game a couple of times, (with Reagan generally using his personal popularity to prevent Congress from actually reining in his interpretation: if Congress got too rambunctious, he would simply appeal to the people in a national address and sufficient congresscritters would step away from the new bills to prevent their passage).
This is the first administration to simply say openly, “we’re just not going to enforce the law” and smirk at the same-party Congress, daring them to do anything about it. Since the issue has not yet come to the Supreme Court, there is no clear understanding how they will rule. (Many partisan members of the SDMB can rush in, at this point, to explain what will or should happen, based on party loyalty.)
Since many (not nearly all) the signing statements have been connected to the War on Terror, it is a crapshoot what will actually happen. The SCOTUS has frequently given war-time presidents broad latitude, (Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, notably) during the war, then restricting their own decisions, somewhat, once the war had ended. OTOH, Bush has already suffered some (toothless) defeats in the Courts regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of the WoT, so predicting (a) how the courts will rule and (b) whthewr it will make any difference to the running of the country is an exercise in futility.
*Toldja * it was “new”, tom. Glad to see you’ve changed your mind. :dubious:
Earlier in this thread, it was pointed out that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have indeed signed onto the notion that there is validity to a signing statement, in their ruling on the Gitmo tribunals. The camel’s nose is already under the tent, and it is hardly a “partisan” statement to point out that simple fact, or that it does indeed represent a danger to the checks and balances system. :rolleyes:
As to if it matters what anyone but Bush thinks, it all depends on what they *do * about it. So far we haven’t seen anything from his Congress other than retroactive authorizations of what he’s already decided to do, and we haven’t seen any court orders, either. The checks and balances system only works if it’s used, and that is where your answer lies.
No, they did not.
How would special Presidential powers under wartime be relevant to the current Ban on Torture issue?
How does some discussion of the issue during Reagan’s tenure make it “new”?
There is a “newer” component to the issue under GWB, but the original complaints in this Forum about it being “new” had to do with the issue arising in the last three months while I pointed out that it has been a matter of discussion for over three years. I have not changed either my mind or my comprehension of actual facts on this issue, so I am not sure what your point is.
Given that Scalia’s statement was that signing statements have no more authority than the external pronouncements of congresscritters on legislation, I am not sure how you are still defending that interpretation of their views. In context, Scalia did not say that signing statements had weight and, as a textualist, he would have a great deal of difficulty defending that position. Until such time as he actually interprets law according to a signing statement, I think we need to withhold our judgment on the issue. He may, indeed, violate his own principles (as I feel he did in the “takings clause” issue and as I felt he did in declaring students to possess fewer free press rights simply by being students), but he has not yet done so and his earlier (truncated) quotation did not say what you now say it did.