Has *'s use of signing statements been illegal? Has it not been

[Skidmore]

beyond the scope of his constitutionally assigned powers? Does it not mean he is in fact legislating? Will we ask future presidential hopefuls to discuss signing statements and how they should be used as a basis for selection of a president down the road?

[madokie]

1. apparently thats what we are led to believe,

but I don't for a minute believe they are legal. It's just the folks who started this democracy didn't even imagine in their wildest dreams a team like dick and w. But you know as I look back on it I seen it coming, I felt in '79 that they stole the election from President Carter as sure as they tried to steal this last election as they stole '00, '02, '04 and '06. Theres no way that bush* beat Governor Richards in '94 either. Yes this Iraqi War group has been ploting a long time to be where they are today and you know what I am going to enjoy watching them fall too, all the while cheering it on.

[izzie]

2. I have read other Presidents have also done it.

The trouble seems to be we can not find our just who did what and when.. That I think is above the law. I do believe the President is to do the laws of the land. I am sure it has been done in degrees to what they think.

[annabanana]

7. Not like this guy. . other "signing statements" were

notifications of the president's views and concerns about passed legislation, not declarations of intended non-compliance.

What this guy did was unique, illegal and unconstitutional.

[izzie]

11. I see what you mean. I think they are wrong but did not know

what the others had done. Thanks.

[mamalone]

3. I have been wondering the very same thing

actually I have been wanting to post this exact question for quite some time- haven't had the courage yet to start my own thread tho, lol. The whole use of signing statements seems so blatantly illegal, and if not technically illegal, then at least against the spirit of the whole checks and balances thang. Why has everyone just accepted his signing statements? why do we allow them validity? how can we challenge this??

thanks skidmore for posting this question:) I will be glued to this thread!

[inchhigh]

4. Line Item Veto

How is this different from a line item veto. He is basically just saying which parts of a law he will enforce and which he will ignore. The signing statement basically "vetoes" parts of the law.

From Wiki

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget<2> <3> by President Bill Clinton.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

[Skidmore]

5. Good point. That the line item veto had to be assigned to

to the executive by congress underscores that legislative powers are not his to use. I consider those signing statements to be acts of legislating and there must be a way to bring them before the USSC for a ruling on this.

[RC]

6. And the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that the signing statements

are not like line item vetoes and in fact are just corrections of mistakes of Congress to better fight the war against terror.

[dmosh42]

8. ABA condemned signing statements

Back in July, the American Bar Assoc. issued a public statement in which they 'condemned' the use of signing statements by this president. They said he had abused the purpose, and that he had more signing statements than all the previous presidents combined since Washington. But they didn't use the word 'illegal'. But it shows intent in my opinion, to be used in case.....

[minnesota_liberal]

9. Making the phoney "signing statements" is one thing. Refusing to abide

by a law passed by Congress (on the basis of said signing statement) is quite another. We need to find an example of the latter and (once the new Congress is in place) rake him over the coals.

[lonestarnot]

10. Definitely need a challenge before the Court.