So, as regards the OP, it appears I shall have to continue to wait for the justification for my dismay/disappointment/displeasure/outrage. It appears I will not even find out what makes this particular signing statement “a doozy.”
Maeglin and RickJay, I’m getting the sense that Mr. Moto does not want to explain why this was a doozy. Since you guys seemed to know what he was talking about, would you mind cluing me in? What made this a “doozy”?
Kindly stop spouting lies.
I just took a “doozy” here to mean an event of some import. A whopper. A big 'un. Mr. Moto said that he personally found the signing statement to be “defensible”. He wanted to know whether the Liberal Millions felt the same way, and if so, how is it different from signing statements used by more objectionable presidents.
This question has been answered admirably by the Teeming Counselors.
Well, it is true that it was quite lengthy as these things go, and it did explicitly state that he won’t follow certain legislation or would follow certain others according to his own interpretation of the law and not necessarily Congress’s intent.
Since these actions created considerable controversy during the Bush administration when attached to other legislation - and since that controversy ran the gamut from a criticism of the practice to a criticism of Bush - I wanted to see what people thought of Obama’s action. I thought that was a fair question, and I expected many different answers.
And how do you now view the issue, Mr. Moto? Do you agree that there is a principled distinction between Bush’s practice of signing statements and Obama’s thus far?
Ah well, this silly little hijack aside, I would just like to point out that as I’m certainly not any dyed in the wool supporter of Obama, I can at least respect the fact that his intellect is considerable, his time as a professor of law and as editor in chief of the Harvard law review (and especially the manner in which he conducted himself there) speak to considerable legal chops, and he is to be taken quite seriously on legal matters. With that being said, I’m not committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Obama’s legal positions can be as wrong as any other lawyers’.
Now, preamble out of the way: I don’t much like the concept of signing statements on points of law. If a sitting President is going to go beyond clarifying ambiguity and go as far as to state that he won’t follow/be bound by any one of the laws of the land, I’d much prefer that the bill simply be vetoed, or that the law itself be challenged in a court of law and defeated or upheld on its constitutionality.
I can understand and respect that there’s tension between the branches of government. Checks and balances are a dynamic process, and I’m fine with that. But I do get uncomfortable when the executive decides what actions of the legislative branch are and are not constitutional. It seems to me that should a function reserved for the judicial branch and that if the President can’t manage a veto, then he’s bound by the law until the point at which it’s overturned as unconstitutional.
I don’t have a problem, either, with the SCOTUS fast-tracking problematic legislation so it can immediately be analyzed on its merits and overturned post haste if need be. But I am very apprehensive of a POTUS who believes he can simply disregard the law because he feels it’s not valid. Even if he’s right, I don’t believe that’s a power that the President should have. Perhaps I’m missing something (and I’d be more than willing to retract or modify my statements if I’m wrong), but the SCOTUS should be able to quickly issue injunctions on any new law until its ultimate constitutionality is determined. At least, the SCOTUS should have enough information to do so if the law is egregious enough that the POTUS could state definitively that it was so wrong that he simply didn’t intend to follow it.
The University of Chicago claims that it extended an offer for full Professor - but given the situation, I’m not entirely sure that the University of Chicago would be motivated to say that he wasn’t offered squat had the opposite been true. The incontrovertible fact is that he is NOT a professor and you cannot say anything about his being an “expert” in constitutional law on the basis of that and on the basis of the fact that he is unpublished. It’s really a simple thing to wrap your mind around. I don’t understand why you’re having problems. And yes, I know it’s a side issue, but you keep on insisting that he IS an expert. (else, why even respond to the post)
And clearly, you left your cognitive faculties somewhere, because FinnAgain hasn’t refuted anything.
It may be a “simple” thing, but it is very much a wrong thing. This often happens.
Your answer is non-responsive. You also have no basis in fact to question the veracity of the claims made by the University of Chicago. You have clearly never been to law school and do not know very much about the actual behavior of law lecturers or professors.
In fact, you don’t seem to know much about the behavior of university faculty search committees, either. Somehow, I am not surprised.
I can only appeal to your common sense. Obama was being groomed to be the Democratic nominee. He had a lot of pull particularly in Chicago and in that school. He can become a generous benefactor to the school or not when he’s President depending on how they handled that question.
I taught Psychology at a university at an Instructor level and I can say that where I taught, “Professor” is a title that confers distinction and denotes a higher level of scholarship. I don’t believe the university I taught in is any different from the University of Chicago in that respect.
Except that we require the President to swear an oath to uphold that very Constitution. We are looking at this problem in light of a strong Executive and a (until recently) rubber-stamp Legislature, but it must also be looked at the opposite way: a strong Legislature and a weak Executive. The Legislature should not be permitted to overturn the Constitution by fiat any more than the Executive should be so allowed, to pass unconstitutional laws as part of an omnibus package and compel the Executive to abide by them.
Resolving that conflict — how to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law, even unconstitutional laws — is really one thing that the U.S. Constitution does poorly. I too would like to see a fast-track system where a law can be submitted for legal analysis, not by White House counsel, but by the Supreme Court. That’s their job.
Look, you might find this hard to believe, but it is possible that the University of Chicago does not subscribe to your definition of “Senior Lecturer.” The law school itself (even in your own cite) has clearly stated that the difference between Senior Lecturer and those who hold the position of Professor is merely that Senior Lecturers are not on a tenure track.
To put this in clearer perspective, Richard Posner is now a Senior Lecturer at Chicago. Posner is widely regarded as a highly respected jurist and perhaps one of the most notable legal minds of our times.
I understand that you think “Senior Lecturer” is equal in status to “adjunct instructor,” or something similar. But it stands to reason that if Judge Posner is given the position of Senior Lecturer, the term, as applied by the University of Chicago to its faculty, is indicative of someone who is highly valued by the school.
Besides all that complex logic, it’s just f’in’ stupid to think that one of the top law schools in the country would hire teachers that they do not consider to be experts in law.
Two thoughts:
Unfortunately for the Framers (and all those who deify everything they wrote or said) they “screwed up” by not anticipating the sheer breadth of omnibus bills, where vetoing because of one minor constitutional wrinkle would create a seriously defective process. It is for this reason that the institution using presidential signing statements to signal constitutional disagreements evolved, and was intended for use when the constitutional reservations were either 1) well settled or 2) amenable to judicial resolution. It is the Bush Administration’s departure from that convention that many disagreed with, and I detailed in my post above.
-Piker
Is that accurate? My understanding is he’s saying the laws Congress has passed are overstepping their bounds as a matter of settled law. Thus it’s not HIS interpretation of the law, but THE interpretation of the law, as set forth by the SCOTUS. Many of Bush’s most controversial signing statements were either arrogating new powers to his office, or stating his intent to not abide by the statute with nothing except his authority as POTUS behind it. Using a signing statement to say “hey, this legislation is over-broad and violates established precedent, as defined by the SCOTUS” is very different.
Congressional intent is not sacred. Indeed in places where it violates separation of powers or other constitutional principles, it should be disregarded. Ideally a veto, but that’s not how Washington works at this point in time. Since portions of this bill had essentially been ruled unconstitutional already by SCOTUS precedent, I see no reason not to note that upon signing. The POTUS is bound by SCOTUS decisions, so he may as well say “I won’t follow this portion of the law because constitutional caselaw says it is unconstitutional.”
Enjoy,
Steven
The case or controversy requirement for the SCOTUS to take up an issue generally prevents pre-emptive injunctions against new laws. The attorneys in the thread have cited previous caselaw which supports Obama’s signing statement saying this law is overbroad and runs afoul of well settled law. Perhaps it’s time to re-visit it and see if a new case would change the law, but that doesn’t seem to be Obama’s approach. He’s just saying that this law is in violation of established precedent and he’s not going to defy SCOTUS precedent in order to follow Congressional intent.
As always, it’s more complicated than that, but Obama seems to be on pretty firm ground, legally speaking. He’s not backing up his signing statement with nothing more than his own authority as POTUS. He’s got SCOTUS precedent on his side.
Enjoy,
Steven
I never stated I thought the signing statement was a “doozy.” I was solely responding to what I thought was your suggestion, in Post 9, that the word meant he necessarily disagreed with Obama’s position on the legislation, which I thought was not necessarily a safe assumption. That was the entire extent of my comment and I’m not in a position to speak in detail for another poster. If you want information from him, get it from him.
Couple of things here. First of all, Congress may have a check on presidential power here - but it does not extend to making him get approval for a military action from an aide. That is an interference of his constitutional responsibilities and a ducking of the powers and responsibilities that Congress has to itself.
Secondly - you imply that the president must act on laws passed by Congress - while case law shows that this is not always so. This was strongly implied in Marbury v. Madison and made explicit in Mississippi v. Johnson.
Clearly presidential duties may take a ministerial form that allow for little discretion, or a discretionary form that allows considerable flexibility. Frankly I regard signing statements as mere notice that a president intends to do what in the past he did with little notice.
I wouldn’t expect a court to give the statement much weight - but the actions being announced may well be constitutional or may well not be. And these actions could be held or overturned by a court - keeping these precedents in mind.
Want to bet there’s going to be some rethinking on this issue?
I’m not saying that Congress can determine every action a President takes. But the power to declare war is one power that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. So, yes, Congress can put whatever conditions it wants on it. Congress can’t require the President to seek approval from an aide - but Congress can say that it won’t approve a military action if the President doesn’t do it.
The issue was never Bush’s use of signing statements, but his abuse of them. just like his abuse of Executive Privilege (or his abuse of booze and blow).
Is it? How long do these things usually go?
I’m bumping this thread because of a very interesting update.
Seems President Obama was stung pretty badly by criticism of his signing statements from liberal quarters last year, and he has curtailed the practice of issuing them. However, he still plans not to enforce sections of laws he finds questionable:
So - the practice might end on paper, but the actual practice that people found objectionable - not enforcing the law - will continue.
How will we know which laws he will and won’t enforce? However problematic the signing statement may have been, at least it had the benefit of transparency. This appears to be sacrificed for the sake of appearances.
I supported the signing statement in the OP. I can’t support this.