# There He Goes Again - And No One Cares \[Bush / search and seizure\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 5, 2007, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849 "2007-01-05T19:21:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/141 "2007-01-09T15:34:27Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] I have a question here. As I understand it, a President’s signing statements simply give the President an opportunity to append his thoughts about some provision of the bill he’s signing or to allow him to state how he will interpret the provisions of that bill in practice. They do not have any actual legal standing at all. Do they? I mean, if, say, President Hillary Clinton were to append a signing statement to a bill reaffirming gun rights saying that she disagreed with it, that terrorism and crime made it too dangerous a freedom and that she intended to have the FBI begin confiscating everyone’s guns (Not that I believe that a) Hillary will ever be President or b) she would make a signing statement like that if she was, I’m just trying to move away from using Bush in any examples because I don’t think most posters-from either side-here can even pretend to be objective about Bush), wouldn’t that mean exactly jack shit? If she proceeded to issue such an order to the FBI, wouldn’t it be immediately challenged in court, who would presumably tell Madam President that she couldn’t do that as per the second amendment and make the whole thing null and void? Isn’t this all much ado about nothing until the President actually , you know, does something? At which point the courts will determine if it was legal for him to do it or not and settle the issue? Isn’t that how things work? [/QUOTE] Pretty much, but Hillary would be quite rightly excoriated by defenders of the Second Amendment for issuing a signing statement like that even absent any actions. For the president to say, in effect, “I can do anything I want and don’t answer to congress,” is completely in violation of the spirit of the Constitution (and of basic good government as well). Obviously whether Bush’s statement amounts to that is debatable, given the three pages of debate here about exactly that. That such a statement would be deplorable, however, is obvious. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/142 "2007-01-09T15:52:30Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] a President’s signing statements simply give the President an opportunity to .. allow him to state how he will interpret the provisions of that bill in practice. They do not have any actual legal standing at all. Do they? [/quote] You don’t think that how, or even whether, a law actually gets observed or put into practice has any significance? Really? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/143 "2007-01-09T17:15:17Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] You don’t think that how, or even whether, a law actually gets observed or put into practice has any significance? Really? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] You don’t read for comprehension very well, do you? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/144 "2007-01-09T17:27:51Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] I mean, if, say, President Hillary Clinton were to append a signing statement to a bill reaffirming gun rights saying that she disagreed with it, that terrorism and crime made it too dangerous a freedom and that she intended to have the FBI begin confiscating everyone’s guns (Not that I believe that a) Hillary will ever be President or b) she would make a signing statement like that if she was, I’m just trying to move away from using Bush in any examples because **I don’t think most posters-from either side-here can even pretend to be objective about Bush** ), [/QUOTE] Unlike Hillary Clinton, of course, whose name elicits nothing but circumspect analysis and rational debate from people on all sides of politics. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/145 "2007-01-09T17:28:46Z")
You made the claim that a signing statement has no legal significance, as if the legal kind was the only kind of significance that matters. If you can’t make your own argument coherently, nobody else is going to for you. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/146 "2007-01-09T18:27:44Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] You made the claim that a signing statement has no legal significance, as if the legal kind was the only kind of significance that matters. If you can’t make your own argument coherently, nobody else is going to for you. [/QUOTE] Nobody else has to. I asked “does a signing statement have any legal standing”, which it does not, and then I said “Isn’t what’s important what the President actually does, and those actions can then be tested by the courts for legality?” To which your response was: > [@Elv1sLies](#): > > You don’t think that how, or even whether, a law actually gets observed or put into practice has any significance? Really? That was, in fact, exactly what I said was important, ergo you have the reading comprehension of medium sized rock. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/147 "2007-01-09T18:40:00Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Nobody else has to. I asked “does a signing statement have any legal standing”, which it does not [/quote] Wrong, not for the first or last time, either. Legal standing is what the Supremes say it is, and you might look into [url=[Presidential Signing Statements - Frequently Asked Questions](http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/FAQs.htm)’]what Justices Scalia and Thomas have to say. > [@](#): > > Isn’t what’s important what the President actually does, and those actions can then be tested by the courts for legality? No, what’s important is that the President _actually follows the damn laws in the first place_. :dubious: That was your standard in the previous administration, was it not? Oh, wait, there’s a difference there, isn’t there? :rolleyes: I would say you’re better than this, except that there is sadly no evidence to support that. Now go back to eating paste in the corner, kid. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/148 "2007-01-09T18:53:11Z")
Jesus, you are one dumb motherfucker. From your own link: > [@](#): > > However, in analyzing the constitutional basis for, and legal effect of, presidential signing statements, it becomes apparent that no constitutional or legal deficiencies adhere to the issuance of such statements in and of themselves. So, signing statements have no legal basis in and of themselves. It goes on: > [@](#): > > Rather, it appears that the appropriate focus of inquiry in this context is on the assertions of presidential authority contained therein, **coupled with an examination of substantive executive action taken or forborne with regard to the provisions of law implicated in a presidential signing statement.** (Bolding mine, for the stupid, gotta remember who I am replying to) You got any more links that prove my point for me you want to post, ElvisL1es? > [@ElvisL1es](#): > > That was your standard in the previous administration, was it not? Oh, wait, there’s a difference there, isn’t there? I have no clue as to what you are talking about. Care to elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/149 "2007-01-09T19:33:35Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Jesus, you are one dumb motherfucker. From your own link [/quote] Look at what the SC Justices I named have to say. Did you do that, or did the taste of paste distract you again? > [@](#): > > I have no clue as to what you are talking about. Care to elaborate? Obviously not as usual, but no, it obviously wouldn’t help if I did. It would require thought of a nature of which you are not capable. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/150 "2007-01-09T20:02:04Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1es] Look at what the SC Justices I named have to say. Did you do that, or did the taste of paste distract you again? [/quote] Sure I saw it. The case was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the courts in the cases of the Gitmo detainees. That means that the Supreme Court upheld the notion that final interpetation of the law belongs to them, and as such has direct bearing on weather or not signing statements have legal authority, implying again that they do not. Once again, you are providing supporting documentation to my points. Did you notice that they were dissenting opinions? Do you know what a dissenting opinion even means? Do we have to teach you basic civics too? Man, this is fun. I’ve been here almost a decade and I don’t think I’ve ever had a poster so gleefully and repestedly post links which disprove his position again and again. [QUOTE=ElvisL1es] Obviously not as usual, but no, it obviously wouldn’t help if I did. It would require thought of a nature of which you are not capable. [/QUOTE] In other words, you got nothing, that was just a non-specific diatribe. Froth away! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/151 "2007-01-09T20:46:32Z")
Just because they’re dissenting in the cited case doesn’t mean that the arguments about signing statements in general don’t still carry weight with Scalia and Thomas (and possibly Alito and Roberts). It appears that the point **ElvisLives** wishes to stress is that as long as Supreme Court justices are continuing to put such argments forward in their dissenting opinions, there remains the chance that the arguments will be relied upon in future prevailing opinions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/152 "2007-01-09T20:59:41Z")
Right you are, sir. A blanket statement that they have _no_ legal significance is simply wrong - even if one restricts one’s discussion to legal rather than practical significance. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/153 "2007-01-09T22:03:33Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Right you are, sir. A blanket statement that they have _no_ legal significance is simply wrong - even if one restricts one’s discussion to legal rather than practical significance. [/QUOTE] Wow. Aparently it is you that requires someone else to talk for you when you can’t make your own argument coherently. And contrary to what you just said, even contrary to what Kaylasdad posted to help you out when you couldn’t stop stepping on your own dick with golf shoes, right now signing statements do have no legal stnding. While this might change in the future, as of today you’re just gnashing your teeth over imaginary transgrassions by Bush. As usual. Froth, froth, froth. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/154 "2007-01-09T22:28:18Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Wow. Aparently it is you that requires someone else to talk for you when you can’t make your own argument coherently. And contrary to what you just said, even contrary to what Kaylasdad posted to help you out when you couldn’t stop stepping on your own dick with golf shoes, right now signing statements do have no legal stnding. [/QUOTE] This tends to suggest that what I posted: > [@](#): > > It appears that the point ElvisLives wishes to stress is that as long as Supreme Court justices are continuing to put such argments forward in their dissenting opinions, there remains the chance that the arguments will be relied upon in future prevailing opinions. is **contradicted** by the fact that _right now_, signing statements have no legal standing. Forgive me, but I’m not seeing the contradiction. A little help, please? ISTM that _some_ Supreme Court Justices believe that signing statements _should be_ considered as having legal standing, and that they are willing to continue to work toward recognizing legal standing in signing statements. For a Doper to look at this as a matter of some concern does not strike me as being particularly Chicken Little-ish, or to deserve a dismissive label such as “froth”. Be that as it may, it’s probably worth remembering that even “froth” can carry viable spores, from which can grow all manner of mildews, molds, and slimy stuff. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849/155 "2007-01-10T00:49:47Z")
And on a re-read, I’d also like to point out that legal _significance_ is not necessarily interchangeable with legal _standing_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-he-goes-again-and-no-one-cares-bush-search-and-seizure/386849.md?page=7)