My stepmother is going on Bill O'Reilly's in 90 minutes, HELP

[Weirddave]

@denquixote

Actually there have been entire books written by legal scholars on why Bush should be impeached for just that reason. The Constitution prescribes a separation of powers that it says is necessary to maintain our democracy. The effect of Bush’s signing statements is to make Bush in effect the head of the judicial branch that is passing judgment on the Constitutionality of legislation. It also puts him above the legislative branch when he states what the legislation means and how he will enforce it or not enforce it based on his own judgment. If Congress passes legislation and the president refuses to enforce it that has the same efect as making him king, putting him in charge of all three bodies of government. It is unacceptable and definitely a reason to impeach him. If Bush wants to veto a bill, then let him and then Congress can either override the veto or not, that is the way things are done. Passing the legislation but refusing to enforce it is not. Interpreting legislation is also not his function.

That doesn’t wash. A signing statement has absolutely no legal standing. None, zero, zip, zilch, nada. If Bush ACTS on his signing statements in a way that contravenes the Constitution, then you may have something, but a simple signing statement means bupkis. Why is this so hard to understand?

[denquixote]

@Weirddave

That doesn’t wash. A signing statement has absolutely no legal standing. None, zero, zip, zilch, nada. If Bush ACTS on his signing statements in a way that contravenes the Constitution, then you may have something, but a simple signing statement means bupkis. Why is this so hard to understand?

You are absolutely right that the statements have no legal effect although at least two (Alito and Thomas) and possible three (Scalia) Supreme Court justices are on record as believing that they do. Bush has written more signing statements than all of the other presidents in history together. He had written 147 by the end of his first term, challenging more than 1100 provisions of laws that he chose not to veto. He has actually vetoed only one law that I know of, the stem cell research bill.

Here is one of the most egregious examples of his flouting of the law (there are many others): The 1978 Inspector General act requires the IG of every government agency to investigate every complaint and report its findings to Congress. This independent oversight tends to keep the government honest. Not so in Iraq. One general reported seeing unprecedented corruption, contractors pocketing millions of dollars. Everything was on a cash basis. Congress passed a special law in 2003 requiring the IG in Iraq to tell Congress whenever officials there refused to co-operate. Bush signed the law but added a signing statement that the IG need not issue such notification to Congress. A year later Congress passed another law with a similar provison, Bush signed it, added a signing statement that the IG “shall refrain” from investigating intelligence and security matters or any crime the pentagon itself wants to investigate. Anyone wonder why the war is so popular in some circles? Anyone really surprised about all of the missing weapons?

The guy has usurped the power of the Congress and the judiciary and just because Congress is too spineless to act that does not mean he is not violating the law in some way on a daily basis. He is and he should be impeached.