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.
You don’t think that how, or even whether, a law actually gets observed or put into practice has any significance? Really? :rolleyes:
You don’t read for comprehension very well, do you?
Unlike Hillary Clinton, of course, whose name elicits nothing but circumspect analysis and rational debate from people on all sides of politics.
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.
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:
That was, in fact, exactly what I said was important, ergo you have the reading comprehension of medium sized rock.
Wrong, not for the first or last time, either. Legal standing is what the Supremes say it is, and you might look into [url=http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/FAQs.htm’]what Justices Scalia and Thomas have to say.
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.
Jesus, you are one dumb motherfucker. From your own link:
So, signing statements have no legal basis in and of themselves. It goes on:
You got any more links that prove my point for me you want to post, ElvisL1es?
I have no clue as to what you are talking about. Care to elaborate?
Look at what the SC Justices I named have to say. Did you do that, or did the taste of paste distract you again?
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.
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.
In other words, you got nothing, that was just a non-specific diatribe. Froth away!
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.
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.
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.
This tends to suggest that what I posted:
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.
And on a re-read, I’d also like to point out that legal significance is not necessarily interchangeable with legal standing.