It’s troubling, agreed. However, the typical Bush reason for not enforcing the law was the “unitary executive” nonsense, if not simple convenience, not an actual opinion about actual constitutionality from an actual (former) con-law professor.
Your use of equivalence is false, but a decent attempt nonetheless.
Apparently he is confusing the White House for the Supreme Court.
A former Constitutional professor who thinks the executive branch decides Constitutional questions. Hmm.
Pretty much. He wants to do the same thing as Bush, but not be honest about it.
He owes an apology to anyone he ever flunked.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not familiar with the details. This is actually the first I’ve heard of it.
But I am opposed to signing statements, no matter who does it. Let him either sign or veto.
That part doesn’t bother me, Shodan - that was always the reason for the statements in the first place (even the “unitary executive” ones depend on a certain reasoning vis-a-vis the Constitution). What bothers me is that if someone is wronged by the President’s actions in this way, it becomes difficult to determine whether he was responsible for the decision and overturning it in court, already tricky, becomes much harder.
I don’t disagree with this at all. It just seems to me that, if Obama thinks he is entitled to act this way, he ought at least to not try to pretend he isn’t doing it. Bush at least did that. He made it clear what he was going to do, and gave the rationale for it. Obama doesn’t.
The next step, it seems, in the “Washington-ization” of Obama. “I won’t do that” is followed by “I will and here’s why” is followed by “I will and everyone should look the other way” is followed (sometimes) by “how can I cover up all this?”
Or possibly even “I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me”.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know anything about the history of signing statements but our government is set up to allow the executive branch to not execute laws signed by the legislature. It’s part of the tri-lateral checks and balances. For example, Jefferson used his executive privilege to ignore the Alien and Sedition Act.
Right - and that privilege is similarly balanced by various types of review - ranging from mandamus to appeal for abuse of discretion.
Pick a better example. That one isn’t so cut-and-dried. The Constitution also says only Congress can declare war, and it is established that Congress can delegate some powers, within limits (see Delegata potestas non potest delgari). And the War Powers Resolution of 1973 raises some constitutional questions, with persuasive arguments on both sides, that have never yet been settled by the courts.
I’m not familiar with mandamus in the Federal system (so perhaps I’m over my head) but I believe the only legal appeal against executive privilege is if the president is violating the constitution. Congress can put pressure on the president by refusing to fund certain programs, which is different.
These do not extend to making the President’s decisions dependent on one of his military advisers (that, incidentally, serve at his pleasure.) If Congress has an objection to a military action they need to take it up, not handle it in this clearly unconstitutional way.
If I’m remembering correctly, a Republican Congress gave President Clinton line-item veto powers which the Supreme Court struck down as being unconstitutional. So that means that a president has to either sign a whole bill into law, or reject the whole thing. They can’t accept only part of a bill.
So for all intents and purposes, how is a president saying he’ll enforce only part of a bill signed into law any different than a line-item veto? I thought that if a law, or part of a law was contested as being unconstitutional, it could be brought before the Supreme Court and they would decide.
It seems clear-cut to me. What Bush did was wrong, and what Obama is doing is wrong, but it does amuse me that some people are defending Obama with “Well at least he’s doing it for good reasons.” And we know that, how? Oh yeah, he said so, and because of how awful Bush was, that must mean that Obama is doing right. Actually, that seems to be the defense about anything Obama does that Bush got criticized for, “Bush was evil, so I have to believe that Obama has good intentions.” It seems to me that if something is wrong, it’s wrong, regardless of the intentions of the people doing it.
Bush used signing statements to give himself more power. Obama is stating that he will refrain exercising all the power that he could. That’s the difference.
And because he’s saying it, it must be true?
Well, if he enforces things he says he won’t enforce then you’ll know wasn’t telling the truth.
That’s actually my point. We’ll need to see what he doesn’t enforce and judge by his actions and not just take him at his word.
But even if that is his intent, it still seems like an end-run around the ban on line-item vetos. You get the same effect saying “I’ll sign this bill into law, but I won’t enforce sub-section A,” as you do saying “I’ll sign every part of this bill into law, except for sub-section A. I’m vetoing it.”
[ Moderator Note ]
I am aware that this is a zombie thread and I would have preferred that a new thread had been posted with a link to this one,
HOWEVER,
pretty much all the original participants are still here, so there are unlikely to be stones thrown at departed posters, and the level of hostility was rather mild, (for matters regarding a current president), so I am not going to close this thread.
THEREFORE, before you Report a post, (such as one accusing other posters of lying), look at the date and make sure that it is a current post.
I am not going to hand out Warnings for violations that occurred months ago.
[ /Moderating ]
Yes, it is somewhat of an end run around line item vetoes, but Chief Executives always have some executive discretion in what they will enforce, and how aggressively.
I don’t have a problem with a President choosing to exercise less power rather than more. Do you?
I’m a strong believer that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, and so if Bush and Obama violate the spirit of the ban on line-item vetos, by doing something else that has the same effect, then yes, I do have a problem with it.
If you are a lecturer ,you are not very good and really have nothing to show. If you get offered a professorship and accept, that day you are an expert. What a dumb argument. He is the embodiment of his education and career.
Note ,the liberals are actually criticizing Obama over the signing statements. The Repubs had nothing to say when Bush cranked them out like a factory.
The Republicans in Congress, with the exception of immigration reform, and I think one other issue, were a bunch a yes men who blindly rubber-stamped anything Bush did and have mostly done a 180 and are a bunch of no men for Obama. I’m glad that the Libs are critical, but ultimately I don’t think it will come to much.
I’d love to see this issue settled by the Supreme Court once and for all, but realistically it will probably wallow in ambiguity forever.