I think we're headed for a Constitutional crisis ... .

[alphaboi867]

@Priceguy

So the signing is more of a formality/keeping face thing?Does the Supreme Court decide by itself whether to take the President to court over matters like these, or can someone else introduce a case?

Leaving a bill unsigned when Congress has less than 10 days (excluding Sundays) left in session is effectively an absolute veto. And no SCOTUS can’t review matters on it’s own motion (I don’t think any American court can) an outside party must file a suit. SCOTUS can’t answer reference questions either unlike the SJC of Massachusetts.

[Random]

@Priceguy

Does the Supreme Court decide by itself whether to take the President to court over matters like these, or can someone else introduce a case?

No/Yes.

That is, someone has to introduce a case, but a third party (who has standing) may do so.

[Random]

@Pochacco

If the president has the power to override any law that Congress makes regarding the actions of federal agencies and officers, what does Congress have authority over any more?

I didn’t say that the Executive had unrestricted power to override laws. I have carefully offered no opinion on the exact extent of each branch’s power in this area.

I did say that Congress was not automatically supreme. And, similarly, I’ll say that the President is not automatically supreme. For example, at a minimum, Congress can refuse to appropriate funds.

(No, I am not saying that this is the extent of Congressional power in this area. But it is certainly one power that it does have to rein in the executive.)

[Oakminster]

@Frank

I’d hardly call it a crisis. Signing statements have needed to go before the Supreme Court for a long time. If and when one makes it, the Court will either say it’s cool or it’s not. End of crisis.

I believe that signing statements that attempt to alter the bill being signed are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional.

And I believe that you’re right on all counts.

The FEMA statement Shrub made is just laughable:

*Bush, for example, said he’d disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security.”

His rationale was that it “rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.” *

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

Hell of job there, Bushie.

[elucidator]

Well, yes it does, it rules out all those people who don’t have any experience or expertise who might be otherwise perfect for the job. They might be quite tall, for instance.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Well, yes it does, it rules out all those people who don’t have any experience or expertise who might be otherwise perfect for the job. They might be quite tall, for instance.

Well, you need to be able to see over the floodwaters, don’t you!

[tomndebb]

Previous thread on signing statements, July, 2006:
Even conservatives have a problem with Bush’s “signing statements”
(Fairly contentious, but the issue was addressed pretty well.)

[DanBlather]

@elucidator

Well, yes it does, it rules out all those people who don’t have any experience or expertise who might be otherwise perfect for the job. They might be quite tall, for instance.

Or exercise a lot.

[Frostillicus]

Can anyone explain to me why Bush would fight this FEMA qualification law, after the unmitigated disaster that was his previous pick for the job? I know the man is stubborn, but this really sounds politically tone-deaf to me.

[elucidator]

I’ve read a bit here and there on the subject. There seem to be two main camps on those pushing for a “unitary executive” viewpoint.

The first we might characterize as an “uber executive” viewpoint, which purports that the President has far more Constitutional authority than we ordinarily assign to that office. Their points are primarily to interpret any nuance or uncertainty in the Constitution as favoring a more sovereign Executive branch, in each and every instance. This view holds those powers to be an integral part of the Constitution, and in no wise dependent upon extraordinary circumstances.

The second would be the “War Time President” view. This is somewhat more substantive, based on the truism that in time of war or national emergency, the President must be free to act in a more constrained time frame than permitted for Legislative action. A declaration of war is presumed to be the underlying authority for such temporary expansion of Executive power. It is Bush’s contention that the much-belabored resolution passed by Congress confers essentially the same set of extraordinary powers. To my mind, this has some merit, but I am darkly suspicious of the current Pretender.

Bush seems to want it both ways. He refers to the first form when he is concerned with legislation that does not directly impact the conduct of the “War on Terra”, and the second when it comes to anything that might be remotely connected to it, i.e., the whole wiretapping thing.

Usually, when I advance my limited understanding on a subject, someone more knowledgeable will weigh in heavily and at length, sacrificing their own time and our own hamsters to point out that I am an idiot. With any luck, it will work again. When it comes to laziness opposed to self-esteem, its no contest.

[Cervaise]

@elucidator

They might be quite tall, for instance.

He is neither tall nor physically fit, but I believe the qualifications of Mr. Fema Bobeema are evident on their face.q

[DanBlather]

@Frostillicus

Can anyone explain to me why Bush would fight this FEMA qualification law, after the unmitigated disaster that was his previous pick for the job? I know the man is stubborn, but this really sounds politically tone-deaf to me.

I’ve begun to question his sanity.

[Odesio]

@Frostillicus

Can anyone explain to me why Bush would fight this FEMA qualification law, after the unmitigated disaster that was his previous pick for the job? I know the man is stubborn, but this really sounds politically tone-deaf to me.

So far as I know the director of FEMA isn’t hired he’s appointed. I imagine Bush, and any President, would fight this in order to protect Presidential power. It’s up to the President to make appointments but that power is kept in check by the Senate’s power to confirm the appointment.

Really, is the restriction Constitutional? What happens if the President appoints someone with 4 years of experience and the Senate confirms?

Marc

[aclubs]

SCOTUS has spoken a while ago, on the ability of Congress to set qualifications for office.

@Myers v US

It is argued that the denial of the legislative power to regulate removals in some way involves the denial of power to prescribe qualifications for office, or reasonable classification for promotion, and yet that has been often exercised. We see no conflict between the latter power and that of appointment and removal, provided of course that the qualifications do not so limit selection and so trench upon executive choice as to be in effect legislative designation. As Mr. Madison said in the First Congress:

  'The powers relative to offices are partly legislative and partly executive. The Legislature creates the office, defines the powers, limits its duration, and annexes a compensation. This done, the legislative power ceases. They ought to have nothing to do with designating the man to fill the office. That I conceive to be of an executive nature. Although it be qualified in the Constitution, I would not extend or strain that qualification beyond the limits precisely fixed for it. We ought always to consider the Constitution with an eye to the principles upon which it was founded. In this point of view, we shall readily conclude that if the Legislature determines the powers, the honors, and emoluments of an office, we should be insecure if they were to designate the officer also. The nature of things restrains and confines the legislative and executive authorities in this respect; and hence it is that the Constitution stipulates for the independence of each branch of the government.'

Congress can make the rule regarding qualifications within reason. (They can’t say, for instance, that the qualifications for Secretary of State are that one needs to have been president previously and also have a spouse as a senator.)

The excerpt from the court’s opinion is dicta, but it quotes Madison quite well.

[aclubs]

Sorry for the bad coding. The case was Myers v US, 1926.

[BrainGlutton]

@Priceguy

Does he, then? I’m not an American and have only rather superficial knowledge of your system, but I cannot imagine that he has the power to simply ignore a law.

The legal-constitutional aspects of “signing statements” are discussed in these threads.

[BrainGlutton]

@Frostillicus

Can anyone explain to me why Bush would fight this FEMA qualification law, after the unmitigated disaster that was his previous pick for the job? I know the man is stubborn, but this really sounds politically tone-deaf to me.

My WAG: It’s because:

1. W does not have to/get to run for re-election again.

2. He (reasonably, I guess) does not expect this to become a campaign issue in the Congressional elections.

[BobLibDem]

@Frostillicus

Can anyone explain to me why Bush would fight this FEMA qualification law, after the unmitigated disaster that was his previous pick for the job? I know the man is stubborn, but this really sounds politically tone-deaf to me.

He may still see this job as a plum to reward to a political supporter rather than one to be taken seriously.

[BrainGlutton]

@Pochacco

Take, for example, this story from the AP about a bill he signed yesterday. In it Congress mandated that any future head of FEMA must have at least five years of experience in emergency management. Bush signed the bill into law, but attached a signing statement saying that he was going to ignore that requirement.

That’s kid stuff compared to this! (See related Pit thread.)

[Kimstu]

@Oakminster's cite

Bush, for example, said he’d disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security.”

His rationale was that it “rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.”

Silly me, I would have thought that requiring experience and knowledge wouldn’t disqualify the people best qualified by experience and knowledge.

@BobLibDem

He may still see this job as a plum to reward to a political supporter rather than one to be taken seriously.

But presumably any Brownie-type incompetent that Bush might reward with this plum in the remainder of his term would be booted out in Feb. 2008 at the latest, right? So where’s the advantage?

Also, the highly-experienced and evidently competent David Paulison has been acting director of FEMA for over a year now, and I haven’t heard of any plans to replace him. This signing statement seems as though Bush is simply trying to look like an outrageous idiot for no good reason, and I don’t understand it at all.