Pretty Ballsy

I agree that you disagree!! 

This is an issue that has been in practice for how many years?   And suddenly now there is a reason to champion the cause for separation of powers?  

Signing statements are not a part of the law... they are reservations to be able to review the sub-effects of the law.   As was mentioned in the article, most of Bush's statements are in regard to National Security or a suspected "unconstitutional" portion or result of the Law.  

I think you would have to agree that with the influx of terrorism in latter years that many new Laws enacted may have hidden issues that are detrimental to National Security.   Many Laws are being pushed through quickly as "Band-Aids" and they may be found to be Unconstitutional after the fact.   When these difficulties surface then there is record of the President's concerns and the Law can be reviewed for correction or replacement.   At no point is the law rejected or authorization given for the law to be ignored carte blanche by the President.

Again, these are just what amount to side notes or a Presidential "CYA" if you will.   These are not Legislative additions, exceptions nor detractions.  The Law is enacted in full as supplied by both Congressional bodies until such time as review is necessary.

I will say, that with all the "big" things to argue about... it is refreshing to debate over something relatively small!

I hate all those people who always use Pres Clinton as an example, but didn't he sign hundreds or thousands of executive orders during his presidency? An executive order doesn't go through Congress at all, giving the President signing the order legislative and executive power. This seems like a more blatant disregard for the seperation of powers than what GW did.

Which by the way, I'm not trying to say that any of that makes Clinton worse or better than Bush, nor do two wrongs make a right, but if they truly want to restore the seperation of powers, I think EO's should be reconsidered in the same light as these statements.

Yeah, I've been freakin out about his signing statements for a while now. Like Clark said, it amounts to one man overriding congress, which is absolutely contrary to the ideals of this nation's system of government. It's nice to see it finally get some attention. You have that when the Barr Association comes out against something though...

As far as Specter goes....I don't know. I hate to be cynical, but I'm kinda seeing this as another thing to add to the list of things the Reps have been doing to distence themselves from a failed president. If it's not a political ploy, more power to him and I salute him whole-heartedly, but I'm kind of in the mindset where that whole party is starting to look inherently screwed up and corrupt.

.Ryan wrote: ..Barr Association...

Roseanne's new charity???

.Ryan, 1st off, I don't believe we have a "failing" President.   The tone of the Presidency was set 9/11/2001.   I find it appalling how many people forget that.   God forbid if Algore was in office, we would all have learned to sing KumBaYa in Arabic while holding hands on a camel hair blanket while he apologizes to the radical Muslim world for us "infidels" still having a head attached to our neck.   But back on topic...

Signing Statements are NOT a side-step of Congress, and your comment of "one man overriding congress" is completely inaccurate and an example of non-informed sensationalism.    

The President has ALWAYS done this, as I said, this is a footnote, a side note, a margin entry, etc... that acts as a check mark for future growth.   It in no way takes away from the Law until such time as the Law is shown to have an adverse effect or Constitutional irregularity.   At that time, the Law can be reviewed by the Judicial System and the Legislative bodies.   However, through this time of review... the Law still stays in effect.

As for the amount of Statements written, I believe this is based on several issues:

1.  There are "knee jerk" and "band aid" laws that are being written due to the periods of crisis we are experiencing.   The Nature if these Laws and the speed at which they are pushed through demand that there be a statement added for un-foreseen complications. 

2.  There sheer volume of Laws that are making there way up the Hill.   As time progresses and life gets more technologically and socially complicated, there are more and more issues that must be addressed.   Much of it is important, however;  I don't think there is any disagreement that much amounts to the desire by your Congress-person to exude a perception that they are doing SOMETHING to keep your vote.

As Clark pointed out, the comparison to the EO is extremely interesting kudos to shub for bringing that up!   I disagree with Clark that it may not be a valid comparison.   This is another tradition/right of the Presidency that in my mind, has more potential to blur the lines of separation.   An EO doesn't only "over-ride" Congress, it goes around Congress completely... I don't want to get into a Bush/Clinton debate though.   So I will just point out that there are many such tools that are available to a President.   Bush's tool of choice is the Signing Statement, Clinton's was the EO... I think if either one of them exercised balance in the use of statements vs. EO there would have been much less controversy for both Presidents.

* Edited to remove signature

Edited by Rico's Revenge - 26 July 2006 at 10:28am

LMAO!!!   I'm sorry Clark... I have been proved wrong by the almighty Pravda and hereby offer my sincere apology...

Wow... how is life in fantasyland?  

TEHGANGSTER wrote: ...all the supreme court justices are in bush's pocket anyway...

That's a pretty bold and unfounded statement...

(Not to mention completely and obviously incorrect)