Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Huck
"A signing statement seems like a quasi-line-item veto. "

So the media would like you to think.

It actually is a public statement of how he intends to administer the law.

Why the media wants to convince you that the president should keep that a secret is beyond me...

Though Dems are more likely to intentionally mis-administer laws, that's a good reason to keep their intentions secret.

53 posted on 06/28/2006 8:51:14 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmith
Like I care what the media "wants me to think." It comes down to presidential power vs legislative power:

It has been the national-security related statements that have caused the most controversy. Last year, after months of difficult negotiations, Bush withdrew a veto threat and signed a defense-policy bill that included a provision by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., explicitly banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. But Bush's signing statement reserved the right to waive the torture ban if he concluded that some harsh interrogation techniques could advance the war on terrorism.

Does the Constitution permit a president to waive portions of laws he doesn't care to execute? Seems to me to be a fair question.

64 posted on 06/28/2006 8:57:05 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson