Posted on 06/28/2006 8:26:44 AM PDT by hipaatwo
"But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
The Federalist No. 78
"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power;"
There more like different coins.
Clinton used his executive authority to make laws (an opinion, which I think is accurate).
Bush (and Reagans) signing statements don't nullify the laws, in that they are not stating that they refuse to follow them, they are stating how they will do so. Congress leaves them (unintentionally) the leeway to do so, by not making detailed bills.
An executive order can easily be overturned, by another order, a congressional bill with a signature, or judicial review.
A signing statement doesn't even have that kind of power, and a president that simply uses his signing statement to nullify a bill, has just effectivly vetoed it, if not used it as a line item veto, something, that Bush has NOT done, nor like all previous executives from before Nixon has he used it to embargo funds (he lacks the authority due to a watergate era budget act).
The signing statement is not a line item veto, and can not be used as one, it is not a means to embargo funds can no more be used to do those 2 things then an executive order can repeal the law of gravity.
Bush has however used his signing statement as an advisory opinion, which has the same weight as a friend of the court brief, but no power, unless someone in court, uses the signing statement as proof of a laws unconstitutionality or cites it as a reason to overturn it.
Thank you, Michigander. I was quite sure that the intentions of the founders did not include total equality of powers for the three branches, but could not lay my fingers on any direct evidence of same.
Here's the problem with that argument: who among the three branches of government executes the laws?
The Prez.
So in this case, Bush's statement carries near-absolute power as long as he is president - because he has stated he will NOT execute the provisions in question. Which only leaves the recourse of a court battle.
Thank you so much for looking for this information, rwa265. I really appreciate it and had forgotten that the transcript of Tony's remarks are available for review.
So those numbers of signing documents that Clinton signed aren't terribly different than the number of signing documents that Bush has signed.
Maybe we should send your post to Sen. Specter!
Near absolutle is a stretch, congress can actually put into the bill which agency does what and how, if they choose to.
If he states he will not carry about certain provisions, he has vetoed the bill.
He can not, and has NOT issued a single veto yet, nor has he Line Item vetoes any bill, nor has he refused to enforce any measure of a bill, though you can rightfully argue that he can sabatoge an enforcement mechanism in any bill if congress is to vague.
Unfortunatly, no amendment, no law, nothing, nada, zip or ziltch, can be done about that, if congress gives the president that kind of discrestion on how he will execute a bill. If they ask him to build a wall and let him work out the details, he can sign it, and assign the task to the department of transportation, or department of education.
Even going to court is useless, since congress essentially says "do this, however you want to do it". His signing statements carry little weight of law, since congress can easily make a law and narrow the loopholes.
Signing statements, here for as long as the republic, and here for the next hundred, or thousand years, will exist as long as congress lets the president use his own judgement on how he wants to execute the laws, he can not refuse to do so (without a veto), nor can he embargo the funds to do so, he just gets to decide how, something esily rectified, without a single law being written.
"Maybe we should send your post to Sen. Specter!"
I have a feeling Tony has had all kinds of information sent to Specter on the subject. As much as I miss his show, he is doing an awesome job as press secretary.
Thank you!
I heard the President on the radio today asking Congress to pass a new type of line item veto. Could this be Specter's way of getting this issue brought up before the Senate?
Whatever happened to actual debate? The type of response I've seen on this thread is sad. And IMHO giving complete support to signing statements will screw the whole country over, if somebody like Hillary becomes president.
Bush came into the Presidency with a personal agenda to assert more Executive power. Probably because Clinton had so tainted the image of the Presidency. Congress is worthless on most every important issue. The Senate is a bunch of stodgy creeps. They are so out-of-touch with the American public that they don't know how to write bills but they do know how to give themselves raises. Bush should veto some of the more errant laws they write. But, Bush is making his own statement his own way. And, good for him. I keep thinking of the nightmare if Kerry had won.
This is one of the reasons Santorum is in trouble in PA. They made their bed......
You must be speaking of a different Toomey.
Pat Toomey -- a 3 term (self imposed and honored) -- congressman challenged a 4 term powerful senior senator who had the full backing of the POTUS, the other Senator, the RNC, the RSCC, the PA RSC, and just about every elected Republican official in PA.
Despite all that and being outspend $15 million to $4 million, Pat Toomey lost by about 14,000 votes out of over 1.2 million cast. A little of 1%
The difference in that race was the last minute visit by Bush and Santorum to plead for votes for Specter. They told conservative voters (but not activist conservatives) that 'Specter was always with us when we need him'.
The only question that remains is who is 'us'?
And those are the facts and it has nothing to do with Pat Buchanon or your paranoia.
Specter could not stop them from getting to the floor for a vote.
The truth matters.
He slowed down the process in both cases in order to give the Dems a chance to find something to use against them or to force them to withdraw. Bush wanted Roberts confirmed in December and it wasn't until the end of January when he got through the long delayed hearings. I don't remember the time frame on Alito.
I am not a Bush fan and I am not convinced that these guys are everything that some people think they are, but Specter did not help, he just couldn't stop them. He didn't have the votes.
Pal, if losing by 1% of the vote in a campaign where 6 months prior to the election he wasn't known outside his district, then Toomey was 'rejected'.
It was a hard fought race that should be used to teach candidates how to run a campaign against an entrenched senior senator who has the support of the whole GOP establishment. There were some mistakes made, but the biggest and most costly mistakes were Bush and Santorum backing Specter. Since the primary, Specter has been a thorn in Bush's side and Ricky will lose in November.
If you want to see 'rejected', wait until you see Santorum's numbers then.
I disagree. He's is not senile.
He is a liberal Democrat pretending to be a Republican. He's doing what rats do.
Yes, Specter was in office before Bush and Santorum (B&S or BS for short) came along. . .
BUT,
He was on his way out in that primary if not for the very active and disingenuous BS campaign efforts by B&S.
Both B&S were trusted at that time and when they told voters -- who were not junkies like us -- that they needed him, enough of them bought that B&S BS to give Specter a tiny lead. In fact, for a brief moment election night, Toomey had the lead.
You just aren't being honest or serious if you contend that those endorsements and active campaigning meant nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.