[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Say Congress passes a law saying that all troops are to be immediately withdrawn from Iraq. What is to prevent the President from issuing a signing statement that he is ignoring that law?
[/QUOTE]
Given that such a law would probably not be an amendment to some other bill, Bush could just veto it. I suspect that is what he’d do in that case.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
When/if this happens, will the ruling be on one, particular signing statement, or on the legality of any and all signing statements?
If it’s the former, then I’m not too worried, although I don’t much like the idea of the President (Bush or otherwise) having the ability to do what’s effectively a backdoor veto as long as he’s got the Supreme Court on his side.
If it’s the later, then Bush’s signing statements might be part of a long-term strategy. He’s been attaching these signing statements to all sorts of bills, even bills like the Fema thing he’s decided to disregard (and which, on the surface, makes no sense). Eventually, he decides to enact one of his signing statements- something minor, one that nobody would really object to… still, it’s enough for the matter to be taken to the Supreme Court to decide whether the signing statement stands. The Supremes decide that, sure, there’s no real problem with this particular signing statement… and suddenly there’s precedent, signing statements can be considered binding.
Or is this just my fevered imagination?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
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.
This chills me. The whole principle behind the balance of power is that Congress makes the laws and the Executive branch executes the laws.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t sound like much of a “balance” to me, it sounds more like the Executive branch is Congress’s little servant boy. We decide what to do, and you do what we tell you to do.
OTOH, letting the President decide who he wants and doesn’t want to nominate for the head of FEMA and letting Congress vote to approve/deny the appointment, is a bit more balanced. I think the inclusion of that requirement was a powerplay by Congress to remove the President’s authority to nominate whomever he wants for the position.
One question about signing statements, do they actually cause anything to happen, or are they merely Bush’s thoughts on how he is going to act with respect to the new law? That is, could Bush have ignored this FEMA law without issuing the signing statement? If so, then we should be happy he’s giving advance warning about his intentions, rather than springing them on us at the last second.
There is nothing unusual or dangerous about signing statements themselves. After all, the Executive must interpret the law in order to execute it and these signing statements occur right out front where, should the Congress find them objectionable, they can legislate to mandate a different interpretation. This is better than the usual manner of Executive interpretation where the law goes directly to the affected departments and agencies who issue often arcane and easily overlooked rules. In both cases there is the legal remedy of taking the government to court to force them to adopt an interpretation more in line with the legislative intent.
Just my 2sense
This thread has finally convinced me that Fearless Leader really, sincerely, positively thinks that the President can do any damned thing he wants. I suspect this attitude comes from his corporate background (such as it was) where some CEOs presume they have such sweeping power.
After all, what rational person could object to the notion of an appointee actually having some practical aptitude for a job. No, dammit, says Bush, I can do anything damned thing I want. “If the President does it, then it’s okay.” I got the Presidential Seal upon the Presidential Podium, my Momma loves me like a rock, etc., etc. Apologies to Paul Simon.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
This thread has finally convinced me that Fearless Leader really, sincerely, positively thinks that the President can do any damned thing he wants.
[/QUOTE]
Insert obligatory “King George” comment here. 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
My WAG: It’s because:
W does not have to/get to run for re-election again.
He (reasonably, I guess) does not expect this to become a campaign issue in the Congressional elections.
[/QUOTE]
But as I noted in the concurrent Pit thread, the FEMA-director-qualifications provision of the bill would probably have gone totally unnoticed in the media if Bush hadn’t gratuitously called attention to it by explicitly rejecting it in his signing statement. That’s why I’m so mystified by this. What on earth is he getting out of this that’s worth the PR hit of reminding the public of the Brownie fiasco?
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
What on earth is he getting out of this that’s worth the PR hit of reminding the public of the Brownie fiasco?
[/QUOTE]
I think this has been answered by MGibson:
IRandom also does a good job of summarizing it here:
t’s a matter of conceding Executive power to the Legislature. It’s a lot like when the Clinton admin was working on health care reform. The Clinton admin was having meetings with health care groups, and people wanted to know who was in those meetings, presumably because those people were helping to frame the new health care legislation. So some folks took the Clinton admin to court, arguing that they should be required to turn over the identity of the people they’d met with. The Clinton admin fought against disclosing this information.
I don’t think the Clinton admin fought against the disclosure because they were trying to hide the people they’d met with. I doubt that they met with anyone that they felt they shouldn’t be meeting with. I think they fought it on the principal of Executive power, as well as on the possibility that one day, they may want to keep the information secret, and they wanted to preserve their ability to do that.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
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.
[/QUOTE]
If W is not planning to replace Paulison, why hasn’t he promoted him to director?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If W is not planning to replace Paulison, why hasn’t he promoted him to director?
[/QUOTE]
Because we stll have four and a half weeks to find out who the best GOP fundraiser was for this election season?
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
OTOH, letting the President decide who he wants and doesn’t want to nominate for the head of FEMA and letting Congress vote to approve/deny the appointment, is a bit more balanced. I think the inclusion of that requirement was a powerplay by Congress to remove the President’s authority to nominate whomever he wants for the position.
[/QUOTE]
Congress has imposed qualifications on federal officials from the beginning. The principle is well established. See post #34.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
He may still see this job as a plum to reward to a political supporter rather than one to be taken seriously.
[/QUOTE]
If he still thinks this about the FEMA director after Katrina, we need to start the impeachment proceedings NOW.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
Or send dumb emails about needing time for dinner before making a TV appearance, or fishing for compliments about his/her pants.