Posted on 02/03/2007 7:10:03 PM PST by FairOpinion
New House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., used his first oversight hearing Wednesday to say he's starting an investigation into President Bush's possible abuse of presidential signing statements.
Democrats and some Republican lawmakers have accused Bush of conducting an imperial presidency by using bill-signing statements to declare that he'll interpret legislative provisions his way and will feel free to ignore some terms.
Though some influential Republicans, such as Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., have railed against Bush's signing statements, several House Judiciary Committee Republicans balked Wednesday, describing Conyers' hearing as political fishing expeditions.
Some legal experts disagree, saying Bush's assertion of this arguable executive authority undercuts Congress and enhances the power of the president beyond the limits set by the Constitution.
Bush has issued 147 signing statements, according to Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
Q: Is George W. Bush the first President to issue signing statements?
A: NO. Several sources trace “signing statements” back to James Monroe. Interesting early statements that include discussions about presidential doubt about legislation and the issue of how the president should proceed are found from Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Ulysses Grant. A brief overview can be found in the ABA Task Force cited below.
Monroe’s messages did not look like what are today considered “signing statement.” Rather he informed Congress in a message January 17, 1822, that he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66281
Even more forcefully, Monroe sent another message dated April 6, 1822, (that refers to his January 17, 1822 message as having “imperfectly explained” his concerns) stating “If the right of the President to fill these original vacancies by the selection of officers from any branch of the whole military establishment was denied, he would be compelled to place in them officers of the same grade whose corps had been reduced, and they with them. The effect, therefore, of the law as to those appointments would be to legislate into office men who had been already legislated out of office, taking from the President all agency in their appointment. Such a construction would not only be subversive of the obvious principles of the Constitution, but utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the law itself, since it would provide offices for a particular grade, and fix every member of that grade in those offices, at a time when every other grade was reduced, and among them generals and other officers of the highest merit. It would also defeat every object of selection, since colonels of infantry would be placed at the head of regiments of artillery, a service in which they might have had no experience, and for which they might in consequence be unqualified.” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66303
In May 1830, Andrew Jackson wrote an message to the House stating his understanding of the limits of an appropriation: “the phraseology of the section which appropriates the sum of $8,000 for the road from Detroit to Chicago may be construed to authorize the application of the appropriation for the continuance of the road beyond the limits of the Territory of Michigan, I desire to be understood as having approved this bill with the understanding that the road authorized by this section is not to be extended beyond the limits of the said Territory.” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66775
Tyler, issued a prototypical “reluctant” signing statement, in which he signs a piece of legislation concerning legislative apportionment while announcing, for the record, that he thinks it is unconstitutional: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=67545
Polk in 1848 similarly warned that while he was signing legislation that established a government in the Oregon territory prohibiting slavery, that he would not have signed similar legislation that involved New Mexico and California south of the “Missouri Compromise Line”: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=68034
Funny... there was never a word about an Imperial Presidency when Clinton did this for eight years...
AND MORE:
http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/
Signing statements are presidential announcements added to a piece of legislation on signing. They range from benign executive branch throat-clearing—thanking and praising the bill's sponsors—to something that approaches a line-item veto: expressions of presidential reservations about the law. These statements are perfectly legal. Presidents have used them since Monroe, and, as Bush supporters are quick to point out, Bill Clinton was one of the most prolific issuers of signing statements. But, as professor Phillip W. Cooper's paper in the Sept. 2005 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly reveals, the difference between President Bush's use of the statements and that of his predecessors is a matter of frequency and kind.
President Ronald Reagan, guided by his Attorney General Edwin Meese III (and urged on enthusiastically by a young lawyer called Samuel Alito), launched a concerted policy to start to use signing statements as a means of reinforcing the executive's message and consolidating its power. Meese arranged to have them published for this very reason. Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan). According to Cooper, by the end of 2004, Bush had issued 108 signing statements presenting 505 different constitutional challenges. He has yet to veto anything.
====
If Bill Clinton does it, it's OK, but if Bush does it, it's "abuse of power".
These fools on the Hill meet too much. Around 30 days a year unless a threat to national security is involved.
Yup they will begin impeachment procedings
In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 391 statements, 105 of which(27%) raised constitutional concerns or objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 128 signing statements, 110 of which (86%) containsome type of constitutional challenge or objection.
What is a "signing statement"?
You mean they actually MEET more than 30 days a year?
Moonbat alert!
when the president signs a bill into law he can assign a statement to it as to the executive's take on the law... i'm just a bill and when i become a law someday the president can say, it should be interpreted as this or i would have vetoed this sucka...
the one for amnesty will state that it is not amnesty...
teeman
Thanks for the explanation, but what type of effect the "signing statements" have?
As part of the executive branch's approval of legislation, the President often issues signing statements. Such statements have generally served a rather epideictic function of celebrating the passage of legislation and focusing public attention on key players who made the legislation possible. These statements have for some time served deeper strategic purposes. Presidents have in signing statements expressed their interpretations of the legislation. For example, in the recent McCain torture bill, the White House expressed its interpretation of what the legislation meant.
These statements have received increase stature since the Courts have on occasion relied on these statements to interpret legislation-- particularly where the legislative branch may be encroaching on the powers of the executive. Since the President embodies the executive enforcement function of the govenment these statements can also guide enforcement agents.
In my own view, the Congress has historically tried to over reach its power. Signing statements help preserve Presidential authority. The Courts can to some extent arbitrate these struggles.
When the president signs a bill passed by Congress, he can make statements regarding his opinion about the bill. The president doesn't veot the bill, but finds some of its provisions problematic and wants to make his opinion official, so he signed the bill with comment. The comment is the "signing statement".
Q: What is a Signing Statement?
A: A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
Excellent, now I understand it, thank you very much.
You are more than welcome Jveritas.
I am a great admirer of your work.
Thank you very much, it is very clear now.
Thanks again and I greatly appreciate your support for the Iraqi documents project :)
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.