American Bar Association calls President out on Signing Statements

JokeyLoki · 07-24-2006, 12:19 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which *******s a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.

ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.

The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.

Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.

"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."

Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.

The task force *******d former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

Aeroplane · 07-24-2006, 12:54 PM

if past presidents have done it before though less, what makes him doing it illegal?

JokeyLoki · 07-24-2006, 01:07 PM

Just because presidents before him did it, that doesn't make it right...

It just hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet.

The difference is that those presidents used it sparingly, whereas this president is abusing the hell out of them, so people take notice now.

Aeroplane · 07-24-2006, 01:43 PM

Right and wrong is different from legal and illegal. So what if he's doing it a ton more, quantity doesn't affect the legality of it.

I'm not defending him, I actually can't stand the guy, but it's a double standard to say it was OK before and not now.

Corganist · 07-24-2006, 01:47 PM

This is so unbelievably stupid to get worked up over. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the President putting down these signing statements. They have no legal effect at all. If he signs a law and then tries to violate that law where the Constitution doesn't give him power to do so, then no amount of signing statements are going to help him. And likewise, if he violates the law he signs and he does have the power to violate it, it'll be because the Constitution allowed him to do it the whole time, not because he added the signing statement that said he could do it. Its perfectly constitutional.

JokeyLoki · 07-24-2006, 02:04 PM

I guess the American Bar Association must be wrong. Thanks for clearing that up, Corganist.

Future Boy · 07-25-2006, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corganist

This is so unbelievably stupid to get worked up over. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the President putting down these signing statements. They have no legal effect at all. If he signs a law and then tries to violate that law where the Constitution doesn't give him power to do so, then no amount of signing statements are going to help him.

You keep saying this, but what exactly is to stop him, in the interim, from ignoring or violating laws since he believes he has the power to do so? Its not that the statements legalize anything, but it is definitely a window into what he thinks he can do.

If he believes he's within his power, what's to stop him?

Corganist · 07-28-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Boy

You keep saying this, but what exactly is to stop him, in the interim, from ignoring or violating laws since he believes he has the power to do so? Its not that the statements legalize anything, but it is definitely a window into what he thinks he can do.

If he believes he's within his power, what's to stop him?

Sorry I missed this earlier.

To answer your question: Nothing can really stop him in the interim from violating any law until the other branches can get him in check. But the existence/non-existence of the signing statements will have no bearing on that whatsoever. IMO, if the President plans on ignoring or violating something he signs into law, its probably better to have a written record of it. Otherwise, he's probably still going to perform in whatever way he thinks his power allows him to, but no one will know what basis he's working under. If anything, the signing statements put up big red flags that says "Hey look! Possible overreach of executive power right here!" thus making sure that those areas get closer scrutiny from the other branches to make sure the executive branch is acting within its bounds.

Trotskilicious · 07-28-2006, 04:46 PM

Since when has the executive branch acted within its bounds? Like really, I want a year.

homechicago · 08-04-2006, 04:42 PM

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51140

07-24-2006, 12:19 PM	#1
JokeyLoki has great self of steam. Location: SECRET OBAMA FUCKDEN RENDEZVOUS Posts: 24,312	American Bar Association calls President out on Signing Statements http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice. The ABA group, which *****s a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws. The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. "This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries." Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii. ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them. The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said. Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate. "Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws." Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions." The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice. The task force *****d former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

08-04-2006, 04:42 PM	#10
homechicago Apocalyptic Poster Location: THIS IS IT! Posts: 2,921	http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51140 __________________ "I love being in the Doobies, so smooth..." - Michael McDonald, Episode 1 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

07-24-2006, 12:54 PM	#2
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,587	if past presidents have done it before though less, what makes him doing it illegal?

07-24-2006, 01:07 PM	#3
JokeyLoki has great self of steam. Location: SECRET OBAMA FUCKDEN RENDEZVOUS Posts: 24,312	Just because presidents before him did it, that doesn't make it right... It just hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet. The difference is that those presidents used it sparingly, whereas this president is abusing the hell out of them, so people take notice now.

07-24-2006, 01:43 PM	#4
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,587	Right and wrong is different from legal and illegal. So what if he's doing it a ton more, quantity doesn't affect the legality of it. I'm not defending him, I actually can't stand the guy, but it's a double standard to say it was OK before and not now.

07-24-2006, 01:47 PM	#5
Corganist Minion of Satan Location: Arkansas Posts: 7,240	This is so unbelievably stupid to get worked up over. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the President putting down these signing statements. They have no legal effect at all. If he signs a law and then tries to violate that law where the Constitution doesn't give him power to do so, then no amount of signing statements are going to help him. And likewise, if he violates the law he signs and he does have the power to violate it, it'll be because the Constitution allowed him to do it the whole time, not because he added the signing statement that said he could do it. Its perfectly constitutional.

07-24-2006, 02:04 PM	#6
JokeyLoki has great self of steam. Location: SECRET OBAMA FUCKDEN RENDEZVOUS Posts: 24,312	I guess the American Bar Association must be wrong. Thanks for clearing that up, Corganist.

07-28-2006, 04:46 PM	#9
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,602	Since when has the executive branch acted within its bounds? Like really, I want a year.