Specter wants to pass law agaisnt changing laws

[Ira Aten]

Johnbt:

"Guardshack Schedule" and "U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint Location" mean two entirely different things.

A guardshack Schdule implies the time which a guard will report to a "guard shack".

A "U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint" is a location at which the United States Border Patrol sets up a field location.


And as far as "changing the meaning of the Constitution" it cannot be done.

One can only misrepresent it, or claim they don't understand it in their "interpretation" in hopes of getting their way.

 

[silliman89]

"signing statements" or "adding language in next to his signature when signing a bill"

if he "does not agree" he is to return it, not scratch out portions, and add in portions he thinks up on his own, and then declare it law.

This is not an accurate description of a signing statement. The signing statement is not a modification of the law. It does not remove any portion of the law. It does not add any language to the law. It is a separate document.

It is the roll of the executive branch to enforce the laws passed by congress. It is the President's job to direct the executive branch in how to go about this. It makes no sense to me to complain about the method the President employs to communicate to his underlings. If he didn't use a signing statement, then he could have used an executive order, or a phone call.

Congress is supposed to impeach the President when he breaks the law. It doesn't matter whether or not he uses a signing statement to break the law. The question is whether or not the law has been broken.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Bowfin"

"You asked If they have to move every seven days, then you might not know where they WILL be, but you certainly will know where they WON'T be on the eighth day. If you are an illegal, that is $64 question anyhow.

I wonder who wrote that little piece of strategy into the bill, Vincente Fox!?"


Dear Bowfin:

It could be set up further up the road, or further down the road. But the guys who wrote it, are the ones you elected to do so.

Bush was not elected to write legislation on his own. That is the point I am trying to get across.

 

[Ira Aten]

Silliman 89 wrote:
"It does not add any language to the law. It is a separate document."

Silliman 89:

If you were to find he wrote in comments on the document itself, excluding himself from certain portions of that law, would you then agree he had broken the law and should be impeached? The paragraph below is cut and pasted from the story I also show below"

"Bush's liberal use of those statements first attracted attention in December 2005, when he signed a torture ban—but then added a statement reserving the right not to enforce the ban, alongside his signature."

Note the words, ALONGSIDE HIS SIGNATURE.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060721/21signing.htm

Full Story below: Bar association task force urges Congress to push for judicial review of Bush signing statements
By Elizabeth Weiss Green
Posted 7/21/06
Related Links
• Inside Washington
"George W. Bush did not invent the document known as the presidential signing statement; he inherited it. Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, and even James Monroe authored the statements, which spell out the president's sometimes controversial interpretation of the very law he's signing. But no president has used signing statements quite like Bush.
Although the president has not issued more statements in total than any other president, he has challenged more than 750 laws in more than 100 signing statements. And he has used them to, in effect, challenge parts of laws, and challenge them more aggressively, than any president before him. Bush's liberal use of those statements first attracted attention in December 2005, when he signed a torture ban—but then added a statement reserving the right not to enforce the ban, alongside his signature. Since then, Congress has held a hearing to investigate Bush's use of the statements, a bipartisan advocacy group has condemned their use, and Democratic Rep. Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would allow Congress to override content in them that contradicts signed legislation.
Now, U.S. News has learned, an American Bar Association task force is set to suggest even stronger action. In a report to be released Monday, the task force will recommend that Congress pass legislation providing for some sort of judicial review of the signing statements. Some task force members want to simply give Congress the right to sue over the signing statements; other task force members will not characterize what sort of judicial review might ultimately emerge.
To mount a legal case, a person or group must have been granted "standing," or the right to file a lawsuit. Current law does not grant members of Congress such a right, and recent Supreme Court decisions have denied it in all but very exceptional cases. But Congress could consider bypassing that hurdle by writing a law to give its members the right to sue, a resolution in the task force's report declares, a source familiar with the task force report told U.S. News.
The resolution cannot become official aba policy without approval from the group's legislative body, scheduled to meet in Hawaii next month. The resolution cannot become official aba policy without approval from the group's legislative body, scheduled to meet in Hawaii next month.
There, the ABA will review four other resolutions, three directed to the president and one to Congress. The first three ask the president not to use signing statements as a kind of shortcut veto. If the president thinks a bill or part of a bill is unconstitutional, one of these resolution declares, he should feel free to say so—but he should do that before he signs it, not after. The other resolution suggests Congress craft legislation to make signing statements more transparent and more accessible. Currently, signing statements are not sent directly to Congress, and they are often ambiguous in their intent. But a law could require the president to write a report explaining exactly how and why he plans not to enforce a law, if he plans not to enforce it, for every signing statement he issues."



Silliman89: Additionally, if he claims a "a separate document" pertaining to a law is to be encompassed in the legislation, would that not be an "amendment" to that law, done unilaterally by the President?

Gosh, I hate to keep pointing out how wrong this is, but to accept it is to say that a President can simply sign a decree and it becomes the law of the land. (Isn't that a dictatorship?)

 

[Byron Quick]

It clearly says if he "does not agree" he is to return it, not scratch out portions, and add in portions he thinks up on his own, and then declare it law. That, is dictatorship, not "clarification".

*sigh*

Please look in the US Code and find ONE example where the federal law on the books follows the wording of the signing statement instead of the wording of the bill passed by Congress.

If you can, it has not been reported by any journalist covering this. Nor has such been asserted by any Congress critter quoted.

Rather, what I have read is that the signing statements give Congress notice of how the Executive Branch-at the direction of the President-intends to enforce the law or portions of the law which the president considers to be unconstitutional.

In my view, Congress passing law that requires Border Patrol crossings to be changed on a schedule or randomly or in any way whatsoever is a violation of the Constitution in that it unconstitutionally intrudes upon the constitutionally delegated authority of the Executive Branch.

A careful reading of the articles thus far-and the quotes-will show that what is happening is not quite what they are trying to imply.

Don't get me wrong, here. I don't think signing statements are a good idea. Neither are Executive Orders. But Congress, neither is earmarking. But what is being implied are implications. Not one single person has stood up on their hind legs and said,"US Code ###, which is Exhibit A, was passed by the House and the Senate in (Title of Bill), which is Exhibit B. A signing statement was issued by President Bush. It is Exhibit C. If you will compare the wording of Exhibit A with the wording of Exhibit B, you will find that Exhibit A has been unconstitutionally changed by the addition (or deletion) of the wording contained in President Bush's signing statement, Exhibit C.

There is a reason that no one has stood up and made this statement.

Note the words, ALONGSIDE HIS SIGNATURE.

Once again, look up the federal statute in question. Read it. I doubt it says one word beyond what the House and Senate passed and Bush signed. And there is already a simple solution to the tempest...the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get into a tiff and the Judicial Branch decides who's right, if either.

What was it Bismarck said? "God looks after drunks, fools,...and the United States of America." Comparing the actions of Congress against the actions of our Presidents throughout our history is NOT a shining defense of the principle of representative democracy. Rather it's a record of prevailing in spite of the Congress critters.

The only rational defense of our system of government is a consideration of the known alternatives. It's not that it is 'good.' Good government is an oxymoron. It's not that our government is the best that has existed throughout history, though it is. The best of a bad lot.

I'm always reminded of General William Tecumseh Sherman's comment when asked if he met any good Indians after a tour of the Indian frontier and want to paraphrase it:"I saw a good government once. It was dead."

 

[brufener]

I have to agree with Byron. Signing statements are simply a statement from the President indicating how he intends to enforce the law.

Ira, it seems to me that your problem does not lie with signing statements themselves, but rather, in your view, that the President is not enforcing the law.

Of course, the Constitution reads "he [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, section 3.

Perhaps you wish to argue that the President is not taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. That is fine, but it doesn't really involve signing statements except for the signing statements may show the President's intent to execute the law in a certain fashion. The argument does involve which powers are reserved to the executive, and which powers are reserved to the legislature, the President's duty (or lack thereof) to enforce an unconstitutional law, the President's duty (or lack thereof) to enforce a law that infringes on the executive powers, the legality of the law in question, etc.

However, that is another conversation.

The only other issue I can see is how the courts treat the signing statements. I have yet to see a case in which a court finds a signing statement binding in and of itself. When the statements are analyzed they are only persuasive. At any rate, that would be a discussion on statutory interpretation, not signing statements.

 

[foob]

I think the questions to ask are:

1. Are the signing statements just statements that elaborate further how the executive branch should go about enforcing the law, in accordance with the interpretation of the legislative branch? (fine)
2. Are the signing statements stating the president's interpretation of the law (not fine, since if he is unsure of how the law should be interpreted, he should refer to congress, or veto the bill and request a clearer, more obviously worded bill)
3. Are the signing statements stating how the president will selectively enforce the law or ignore it completely? (not fine, if the law bans torture, he cannot reserve the right to not enforce this law, well he can do this in his mind, but he really can't do this on paper)

Basically, the president has to enforce the laws in accordance to the interpretation of the law when it was written by congress. He cannot make up his own interpretation of the law, since that will circumvent the powers accorded to congress, one which is the power to make the laws. The courts when deciding the legality/constitutionality of laws, don't say "hmm, how did the president intent the law to be?", instead they ask "how did congress intent the law to be".

Using hyperbole, a law passes that bans all rifles and handguns, he cannot interpret the law to only mean rifles and not handguns. He also cannot redefine the handgun to be a sword and arrest people owning swords. The powers of the ATF is deried from purposeful misinterpretation of the laws, do you want the president to have even greater leeway than what he has already now? The executive branch is the most dangerous branch when it is corrupt, and we must continually be vigilant and prevent any unlawful grab of power from the other branches of government and from the people.

 

[foob]

the President's duty (or lack thereof) to enforce an unconstitutional law

It is not the president who decides whether a law is unconstitutional or not, it is up to the courts to decide this. When it is ruled unconstitutional, it is not law anymore, and the president does not have the duty (or the legal right) to enforce said law.


I think it is very scary, when the president selectively enforces the law based on personal opinion (e.g. ideological, moral, ethical, religious). But it is 10 times more scary when he puts it on paper that he intends to do so. This shows utter disrespect for the law and the basic principles of this nation. Does not matter if it was on a signing statement or an executive order. I haven't seen enough examples or examined carefully President Bush's signing statements, so I am not sure whether he is doing this.

 

[brufener]

It is not the president who decides whether a law is unconstitutional or not, it is up to the courts to decide this. When it is ruled unconstitutional, it is not law anymore, and the president does not have the duty (or the legal right) to enforce said law.

I disagree. The President can decide whether a law is unconstitutional. HOWEVER, if the courts make a ruling on the law then the President must follow their ruling. That is, the President should not substitute his judgment for the courts. When the court is silent on the issue, the President has every right to make up his mind.

I believe that the President does not have to enforce a law that he finds unconstitutional unless a court declares that it is constitutional. I don't have a cite, but if you think I am wrong I would be happy to dig.

From a practical standpoint it makes sense that if there is a disagreement about whether a law is constitutional, we do not want it enforced. For example, suppose Congress declares that all guns are illegal and must be confiscated. Do we want the President to go about enforcing the law while he/we wait for the courts to act? I think not. Better to maintain the status quo and wait for the court's decision.

 

[silliman89]

Ira,

If you were to find he wrote in comments on the document itself, excluding himself from certain portions of that law, would you then agree he had broken the law and should be impeached? The paragraph below is cut and pasted from the story I also show below"

No, but I'll admit that I had to think about it. Those would just be comments, not a modification of the law. If portions were crossed out, or language were added to the body of the law, that would be grounds for impeachment. I don't think that would be a signing statement though.

I tried to answer the question in the spirit you intended, but I would like to point out that I don't believe the US News article you quoted. Look at some of the signing statements here:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2006&Submit=DISPLAY

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

Signing statements are lengthy documents, not comments penned into the margin.

Here is another news story on the signing of the bill on torture.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law

There is no mention of Bush writing on the bill itself. I think that was just a bit of allegory from US News. The signing statement was figuratively beside his signature, even though they were on separate pieces of paper.

Silliman89: Additionally, if he claims a "a separate document" pertaining to a law is to be encompassed in the legislation, would that not be an "amendment" to that law, done unilaterally by the President?

No. The signing statement is not "encompassed in the legislation".

 

[foob]

I disagree. The President can decide whether a law is unconstitutional. HOWEVER, if the courts make a ruling on the law then the President must follow their ruling. That is, the President should not substitute his judgment for the courts. When the court is silent on the issue, the President has every right to make up his mind.

I have to respectfully disagree again hehe.

The only time he gets that chance/choice is before he signs it into law, when he has a chance to veto it.

Once he signs it, he cannot decide the law is unconstitutional. If he sincerely believes that the law is unconstitutional, he will have to bring the case up to the courts and let them decide. The courts may provide an order (think it's an injunction) so the executive branch cannot enforce it while the courts decide on it's legality.

The separation of powers is crucial to prevent the system from collapsing or for one branch to usurp the powers of the other branches.


IF the president had the power to decide whether a law was unconstitutional, he could at some point decide that all laws were unconstitutional, and declare himself King of the country. I think the framers of the constitution never gave him that power.


Note, I believe leeway is given to the president to place more emphasis on enforcing some laws over others. But this is because of the limited resources of the government (e.g. time, money).

 

[brufener]

IF the president had the power to decide whether a law was unconstitutional, he could at some point decide that all laws were unconstitutional, and declare himself King of the country. I think the framers of the constitution never gave him that power

You're right, under my analysis he could...until a court said he isn't King or Congress impeached and removed him.

I like your idea in principle, but I think that it doesn't work in a world without line-item vetos. The lack of line-item vetos is one explanation for why we are where we are. The President recognizes that things need to be done, and that he can't veto every bill when he disagrees with only a small part of it. I think your idea is great in principle, but our government is a government of comprimises.

Your analysis is also problematic if a law is passed over a veto (but that hasn't been a problem w/ Bush).

 

[foob]

I do like line-item vetos, but that's something we can discuss next time Damn congress and their pork barrel spending.

In my idealized world, the president would be a robot, give him a set of rules (e.g. laws), and he performs a set of valid actions. No bias, prejudice, discrimination, opinions, greed, corruption. How he enforces laws would be like an optimization problem. The legislative branch makes the rules, and the judiciary settles any rule conflicts and evaluates the actions. Oh well, never gonna happen.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Look folks, Bush has already done many things which make him elgible for impeachment.

#1.) Not defending the borders by sending troops there. While it would be Congress's duty to declare war on Mexico (not a good idea, all you need is the troops), it is the President's duty to act as commander and chief.

#2.) Violating the 4th and 5th Amendments, not by taking enemy combatants in time of war, but by not protecting the rights of Americans. And yes, Arabs of Muslim religion are citizens.

#3.) The actions just described by Ira Aten.

Are any of these things gonna result in an impeachment? No.

Are any of these things an indictment of Bush w/o an impeachment of Clinton?

No.

The selling to the Chinese of U.S. military secrets alone was justification to have Clinton go to the electric chair. But, that wasn't and isn't gonna happen.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Brufener:

"When the court is silent on the issue, the President has every right to make up his mind."

Brufener:

It is not about the President's "rights".

It is about Presidential "Powers".

Just because the SCOTUS has not issued a ruling on something, does not mean the President can unilaterally do what he has done. Adding language to a Bill and then signing it into law, is not "making up his mind". It is changing the Bill you are then signing into law, knowing full well you don't have the Constitutional authority to do it.

Try this for an example.

The SCOTUS to my knowledge, has never issued an opinion regarding a President-Eelect taking office but refusing to swear or affirm the oath of office of President of the United States which includes the words set out in Article II, Section I, last paragraph.

It is set out clearly in the Constitution that "BEFORE HE ENTER ON THE EXECUTION OF HIS OFFICE, he SHALL TAKE the following oath or affirmation:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If a President-Elect refused to swear or affirm that oath, I doubt you would claim a Supreme Court ruling would be necessary to determine if it was "Constitutional" for him to become acting President without doing so, since the Constitution dictates he must do so, "Before he enter office".

Saying the President has a right to make up his mind if a SCOTUS ruling does not exist misses the point. The Constitution says what his office's powers are.

Remember, they are talking about Powers, not Rights. He can't just say "Well, the SCOTUS has never ruled on what should happen if I refuse to take the oath" and then expect to "enter" office as acting President, but not take the oath.

Just because previous Presidents made statements about laws on a separate document, does not mean this one can "add next to his signature" a stipulation precluding a certain portion of that law he is signing.

You said a "signing statement" is a separate document intended for clarification. But my question (which you might have missed) was if he attempted to "add language" to a bill, EXCLUDING HIM from certain provisions of the law he was enacting and then signed it declaring it law, would you agree he had violated the Constitutional powers of the President?

Because if you read the article, it says plain as day that he "added language next to his signature" on the bill, which language said, he does not intend to consider that portion of the bill he disagrees with, law.

The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret if a law is Constitutional, not if the Constitution is Constitutional. And the Constitution says if he does not agree, he is to return it UNSIGNED to the "house in which it originated" for reconsideration. Then, they can vote two thirds majority, and it becomes law "as if he had signed it". It is written that way, to prevent the President from dictating law, because we elect representatives from each district to perform that function.

Just because previous Presidents issued "signing statements" as separate documents, does not seem to give the President the power to simply start unilaterally drafting laws at the end of a bill, sign it, and then declare all of it to be law. The Constitution is clear on what he is to do should he disagree with it.

 

[RealGun]

Congress should not leave it up to the President to pick out nongermane or budget busting elements of a bill and veto them as line items. The Supreme Court has left it to Congress to either send the President clean bills or get a constitutional amendment to allow whatever Congress and the States want. The problem with more, smaller bills, those which have been picked up as amendments but not able to get floor time as standalone bills, would be that Congress would have to greatly streamline their procedures to handle the increase in number of bills.

Currently the only remaining question is whether the President should sign something just because any veto is likely to be overturned or if the President feels an element of the bill is unconstitutional. A veto is certainly a way for a president to "wash his hands" of the matter.

Note that appropriations packages are passed very late, immediately before the congressional session ends at the end of the year. Therefore, the government would come to a halt if the President vetoes the bill and it has to be processed again. That is one way that many things skate through.

One safeguard is that no legislation may be attached to an appropriations bill by Senate rule. The abuse is with pork.

 

[seeker_two]

Can't we just impeach this oblivious neo-con shrub and move on with the business of running this country?.... :banghead:

 

[DKSuddeth]

way to go specter, falling headlong in to the partisan crap thats slowly sinking this nation.

 

[Byron Quick]

Adding language to a Bill and then signing it into law, is not "making up his mind".

Ira Aten,

Please direct me to the US statute that contains added language not contained in the bill passed by Congress. As the US code is public domain and most bills passed by Congress are also in the public domain, this should only take you a few minutes on Google.

Or admit that you are parroting unproven implications contained in press articles.

way to go specter, falling headlong in to the partisan crap thats slowly sinking this nation.

You can look at it that way or you can do as I do...celebrate every day of congressional 'gridlock' as another day of reprieve from the depredations of jackals and buzzards.

If we could get the Republican Party and Democratic Party to hold a national convention together, arm both sides to the teeth, fabricate evidence that convinces each party that the other party is planning to wipe them out...wow, we could all go to bed that night secure in the knowledge the Republic is safe again. The only thing in American politics that scares me almost as much as a liberal Democrat is a conservative Republican.

Man, I just don't get it. A fiscal 'conservative' Republican talking about the Democrats. Do the math, he's still talking taxes that are about four times as much as the most powerful Pharaoh who ever lived dared impose...and that Pharaoh was a living god to his people.

 

[Preacherman]

Ira, you're flat-out wrong on this point. The President - any President - may write comments about the constitutionality of a bill when he signs it. These comments do not change the law: they indicate how he, as the head of the Executive Branch, will interpret and/or apply the law. They're open, public, and reviewable. If anyone - ANYONE - feels that the President's interpretation is incorrect, he/she is free to take up the matter with the courts, which have the authority to determine the Constitutionality of any law or regulation or executive order.

There's nothing underhanded here: no plot, no secret directive, no hidden agenda.

 

[gc70]

Article I, Section VII of the Constitution does not grant such power, and specifically dictates what the President "shall" do if he does not agree with the bill as sent to him by Congress.

Ira, are you a lawyer? Your analysis is the most harrowingly precise interpretation of Constitutional language that I can imagine. By your logic, Bush should not be breathing because the Constitutional dictates of what the President "shall" do contain no mention of oxygen consumption.

 

[GT]

Another example of Irrational Bush Hatred Syndrome.

It seems to be the thing nowadays to want to impeach the President for being, well, presidential.

Just because he does and says stuff that you don't like (and he certainly does that) doesn't mean you get to play Constitutional Scholar for the day and find "reasons" to impeach.


G

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course the President can write comments about the law. Even comments to the effect that this or that about a law is unconstitutional.

It's just that "is unconstitutional" should, without any exception, be followed by the words, "which is why I'm vetoing it.". The President is no more entitled to sign unconstitutional laws, than Congress is to enact them.

For years I wondered why this President never vetoed anything. Now I know: The clown thought signing statements amounted to line item vetos.

I'm not suffering from Irrational Bush Hatred syndrome. I'm suffering from Have Totally Exausted My Patience With This Moron syndrome.

 

[JohnBT]

Were you tired of all the previous Presidents who did the same thing? Or just this one?

The way I see it the thread so far has been less about whether a President should or should not do this and more about 'that SOB Bush the moron scum should be impeached.'

John

P.S. - And Ira Aten, the guard shack schedule we're talking about is the schedule of when and where to move the guard shacks. Do you enjoy twisting things and being generally stubborn and silly? It's not becoming.

 

[foob]

Were you tired of all the previous Presidents who did the same thing? Or just this one?

I don't think it's the use of the signing statements, but the content of the signing statements (the number of constitutional challenges in them) that have gotten some people riled up.

Generally when the American Bar Association, and Arlen Specter (the republican senate judiciary committee chairman), both respected for their knowledge of the law, are freaking out, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and look more closely at what Bush is doing.

Isn't it suspicious when the only defense given is that they are bush-haters.

From Wiki: George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 constitutional challenges) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power