Signing Statements (Most likely a debate)

[Maleficent13]

I cannot believe I'm about to start a debate on this, but I am so intrigued by these. I will be honest and say I was unfamiliar with them until the last few days. But now that I know they exist, I cannot stop thinking about them.

This is my interpretation of what they are: Little ditties the President (any President, not just the current one) adds to a bill he's signing into law, indicating his opinion of said bill/law.

Now, however, I find that on some of the bills Bush has approved, he has added signing statements that in effect act as a disclaimer, stating he reserves the right not to follow the law he is enacting?

Is this constitutional? I mean, can you sign a bill into law and then say, well, this is for everyone else but not me? I am not being sarcastic about this; I am truly interested in how this works.

 

[AllyandJack]

I think it's very common. For example, Bush (I don't even know which one....might have been the 1st one) signed a law stating that you can't exclude non-union companies from bidding on Federal projects (it might even say you can't have a Federal project with only union contractors...not positive of the exact wording). However, John Kerry swooped in and got an exemption for MA and the Big Dig. There are always loopholes and people can get exemptions - the President can exempt himself and other people can get separate exemptions from the President or from Congress.

It makes no sense to me either, but it happens. Why waste the time enacting the law if certain people don't have to follow it?

 

[Lanshark]

I've never heard of these. Can you give a link or example. Is the signing statement meant to be a comment or is it binding?

 

[Maleficent13]

I don't have a link that explains them without a lot of bias for or against them. I'll keep looking. And I too am a bit about whether they are binding...I don't think they are supposed to be, but?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I just heard about them, too, and don't really understand. I feel stupid.

 

[ToriLammy]

I've never heard of these. Can you give a link or example. Is the signing statement meant to be a comment or is it binding?

Oh thank goodness I'm not the only one who has never heard of these. I always understood that only Congress could add or delete something to a bill (unless there is a line item veto which I'm pretty sure died).

 

[ToriLammy]

I don't have a link that explains them without a lot of bias for or against them. I'll keep looking. And I too am a bit about whether they are binding...I don't think they are supposed to be, but?

Post what you got, normally we can decipher what we need from the bias

 

[Maleficent13]

Post what you got, normally we can decipher what we need from the bias

Oh, I know...but I was trying to avoid the whole debate within a debate about sources!

Here's the first site I found:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

I'll go gather some more.

 

[Maleficent13]

Here's some more:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15106725.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/

 

[caitycaity]

soomer or later congress will step in or someone will sue. while bush's overuse of signing statements is concerning, i don't believe it will go unchecked forever. perhaps i am crazy, but i still have some shred of faith in our political system.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Here's the original straight news story (in other words, not a commentary piece) from the Boston Globe, who first broke the story;

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Since that story broke, the American Bar Association felt strongly enough about the matter to investigate the allegations. Here is that original story;

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/

Here are two stories detailing the results of the ABA's investigation. It was their determination that someone should acquire legal standing in order to be able to sue President Bush so that the legality of his actions around the signing statements can be properly determined;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...06/07/24/panel_chides_bush_on_bypassing_laws/


Hope this helps!

 

[cardaway]

I am having a hard time finding a good reason for these to exist. There has to be one right?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Hey Mal, I guess it's difficult to debate something that a lot of people don't understand.

 

[Maleficent13]

I thought I was going to be inundated with all kinds of reasoning for or against it! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one by it.

Thanks for the links, Mugg Man!

 

[Mugg Mann]

I thought I was going to be inundated with all kinds of reasoning for or against it! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one by it.

Thanks for the links, Mugg Man!

You're quite welcome, Maleficent! I tried to link to only straight news articles. And I can sympathize with you; there are many threads where I do not feel that I have enough command of the issue being debated to warrant jumping in.

I applaud you and the other posters on your desire to know more!

 

[Maleficent13]

Okay; I've read most of Mugg Mann's links (most, because the Boston Globe site kicked me out because I wouldn't register ) and here's my opinion on this:

Signing statements are wrong, regardless of who has used them in the past or is using them now. Approve it or veto it, but this sneaky, roundabout way of saying "neener neener neener" is wrong. And let's not even go into the whole "President deciding what is Constitutional or not" issue...if I remember high school civics, Congress makes the laws, the President executes the laws, and the courts intepret the laws. Seems like this signing statement thing allows the President to do all three.

I was curious and confused before, now I might be annoyed.

 

[FergieTCat]

I am having a hard time finding a good reason for these to exist. There has to be one right?

You can't think of one good reason why President Bush would enact a law and then add a disclaimer that he doesn't have to abide by it?

 

[Mugg Mann]

Okay; I've read most of Mugg Mann's links (most, because the Boston Globe site kicked me out because I wouldn't register ) and here's my opinion on this:

Signing statements are wrong, regardless of who has used them in the past or is using them now. Approve it or veto it, but this sneaky, roundabout way of saying "neener neener neener" is wrong. And let's not even go into the whole "President deciding what is Constitutional or not" issue...if I remember high school civics, Congress makes the laws, the President executes the laws, and the courts intepret the laws. Seems like this signing statement thing allows the President to do all three.

I was curious and confused before, now I might be annoyed.

Sounds like you've got a good understanding of the issue! (although I would recommend registering in order to read the rest of the articles; I've registered on many web sites that I normally wouldn't give the time of day to in order to read something to completion)

We have had a system of checks and balances in place since this country was founded and the constitution put in place. The attempt by this particular president to circumvent to a degree never before tried is truly frightening for those of us that believe that the system is greater than any one person.

For those who are comfortable with what the president is doing, ask yourself the following question honestly; think of a president who you did not approve of. Would you be equally comfortable with that particular president trying the same end-around that the current occupant of the office is?

 

[HaleyB]

Thanks for asking Maleficent13, and thanks for the links and explianation Mugg Man.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I cannot believe I'm about to start a debate on this, but I am so intrigued by these. I will be honest and say I was unfamiliar with them until the last few days. But now that I know they exist, I cannot stop thinking about them.

This is my interpretation of what they are: Little ditties the President (any President, not just the current one) adds to a bill he's signing into law, indicating his opinion of said bill/law.

Now, however, I find that on some of the bills Bush has approved, he has added signing statements that in effect act as a disclaimer, stating he reserves the right not to follow the law he is enacting?

Is this constitutional? I mean, can you sign a bill into law and then say, well, this is for everyone else but not me? I am not being sarcastic about this; I am truly interested in how this works.

Bush is simply using this as an excuse to ignore the law and throwing it out as a smokescrean. It's what he does on everything. He does what he wants and puts one smokescrean out after another to try and justify it. But there is nothing in the Constitution that gives signing statements any force or effect in law. It simply isn't there. And the Supreme Court should not even look at them. Note that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas think otherwise. Talk about your activist judges.

Example. Suppose the President thinks a law outlaws pig slaughtering and declares so in a signing statement. And suppose the Law states that slaughtering cattle is illegal but says nothing about Pigs. Well it doesn't matter that the President THINKS it outlawed the slaughtering of pigs when he signed it. It specifically says it outlaws the slaughtering of cows and says nothing about the slaughtering of pigs.