[Sonny M]

This is interesting from a constitutional perspective.

In a very bad way.

Signing statements have been around since George Washington, the gripe with Bush is that, he uses them far more often, and in different ways, and voices concerns allowing for them to be used to strike down parts of a bill.

Congress, threatening to sue Bush is upsetting to the balance of powers, and would open the door at some point to vice versa.

[Huck]

allowing for them to be used to strike down parts of a bill.

That's the issue right there. The president does not have constitutional authority to strike down parts of a law. He can veto or sign. That's it.

[11th Commandment]

I am not sure this is constitutional, it sounds traditional. In fact, with regards to budget bills, congress forbids the executive branch from NOT spending money- this goes back to Nixon- the President would not spend all the budget dollars to balance the budget.

It sound like what Bush is doing is using this tradition in lieu of a line item veto. As soon as he hammers the line item veto out with congress, he will probably stop this practice.

[mcvey]

It is a lot more complicated than that. I have never been comfortable with signing statements and doubt that they have an official status.

The judiciary decides what laws mean.

If Bush wanted to sign a law different than the one presented, he should have vetoed.

We conservatives who back original intent should not allow a president to bypass original intent through signing statements.

McVey

[qlangley]

>Signing statements have been around since George Washington, the gripe with Bush is that, he uses them far more often, and in different ways, and voices concerns allowing for them to be used to strike down parts of a bill.


Sure, but I wish he would just veto a lot more of the garbage Congress sends his way.