Time to tackle * signing statements

[meldroc]

Now that the Dems have retaken Congress (OK, we still have to wait until they get sworn in,) among the ten million other things on the agenda, I think we should see what can be done to challenge Bush's signing statements, and that toxic "unitary executive" theory that Bush is using to assert dictatorial powers.

Maybe Congress could sue the President, stating that the law Congress written stated X, but Bush executed Y instead. There are lots of examples.

But basically, the goal is to get written into legal precedent that signing statements have no legal power. The President can express his opinions in there, and explain what he thinks the law says if the law is ambiguous, but he can't use a signing statement to change the law, or ignore the law, or break the law. He has to execute the law as Congress wrote it. Also, make sure that the Unitary Executive theory is completely shot down in court. Congress is not just an advisory committee - they write the laws, and the President is bound to the laws.

Court challenges sound like a good way to go. Maybe writing in some legislation, and use some political arm twisting - threats of investigations or impeachment, to get Bush to sign it instead of vetoing it.

[swimboy]

1. Amen! No more Urinary Executive!

:applause:

[Divernan]

2. Problem with court challenges is threefold.

First, you have to find a case where the law was interpreted and applied as per the language of Bush's signing statement, and not the language of the legislation. Second, it could take years for a case like this to wend its way through the trial and appellate levels of the judicial system. Third, the court's decision could be held to apply only to the specific facts of that particular case and not applicable to the issue of whether a president can make signing statements under any circumstances. I'm wondering if language can be inserted into legislation that the application and interpretation of the law is governed entirely by the language within the "four corners" of the legislation as passed by the Congress, and is not subject to any further interpretation by the administrative branch. (Because there's nothing in the Constitution authorizing signing statements, as far as I know.)

The way this works at the state level, where Governors do not presume to issue "signing statements" is that if the law is too vague and results in conflicting interpretations by the courts, the state supreme court issues ITS interpretation of what the legislators intended. Then if the state legislature disagrees with the state supreme court's interpretation, the Legislature AMENDS the legislation to clarify its meaning and intent.

I do agree that this is as critical an issue as any facing the new Dem majority.