Can the Dems do anything about the thousands of Bush signing statements?

[NNN0LHI]

Those are the statements he signs after every new law goes into effect that makes himself not bound by any of these laws? Can the Dems do anything about reversing these signing statements short of impeachment?

Don

[Swede Atlanta]

1. Probably not directly

The Constitution and the oath taken by the President provide that he/she must faithfully execute and uphold the laws of the United States. If Congress duly passes a law and the President places his or her signature on it, that piece of legislation becomes the law of the land.

I think that until he actually uses his "cross my fingers" signing statement and does not faithfully execute and uphold the law, there isn't much we can do. But once he or she crosses the line and doesn't fulfill the oath of office they are subject to impeachment and removal from office.

[texpatriot2004]

2. Also, can they put a stop to these w/legislation nm

[Generator]

3. Olbermann just asked Jonathan Turley that on Countdown

Said the best way was to shut down the funding of the bills. I'm not sure how it all works, but there was some optimism there after all that horrible dread we felt we've felt the last months.

[Divernan]

7. Shutting down the funding plays right into Bush's hands by

basically scuttling the whole law, i.e., throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Or to put it another way, the legislative branch would be vetoing its own law.

[Union Thug]

4. Yes. They can impeach the rat bastard.

[Divernan]

5. Here are my thoughts on this posted earlier this morning,

in response to a thread raising the issue and asking whether court challenges were the way to go.
(I'm a retired govt. lawyer whose work included drafting legislation)

"Reply #2: Problem with court challenges is threefold.
Response to Original message
2. Problem with court challenges is threefold.
Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 11:54 AM by Divernan

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 (as part of an opinion) of what the legislators intended. Then if the state legislature disagrees with the state supreme court's interpretation, the Legislature has the option to AMEND 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."

(Hi Don! Happy Days, kiddo!)

[pinto]

6. I don't think there's a Legislative action to reverse a signing statement from

the Executive. One of those grey areas that's not well defined or obviously well discussed outside of political circles. Maybe one tact would be rewriting the Legislative action(s) to try and tighten up the provisions and require mandatory oversight and specific reporting. That might be a tool to review an Executive signing statement attempt at a side-step. The Bush Administration has already ignored reporting requirements on some legislation, but I would hope that to change in an observant Democratic Congress. It's a significant change we can advocate for our with majority role in Congress.