Signing Statements
The American Bar Association assembled a task force made up of Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, and noted scholars to address the practice of signing statements. The ABA is not a liberal organization, such as the ACLU. This is the same ABA, which gave the two most recent nominations to the Supreme Court, their highest rating.
The task force reported that Bush not only disregards laws, but also charges that he has violated the Constitution, which he has twice sworn to up hold. At issue is Bush's assertion that it’s within his authority to disobey statutes that Congress passes.
The ABA insists that “signing statements” cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto. Bush’s use of signing statements amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a couple of years ago. The task force said the president has attached signing statements, as they're called, over 800 times, which is 200 more times than issued by all of the previous presidents combined.
It’s not just the number of signing statements, but also what they're saying. The most well-known example, is John McCain's bill, which outlawed the use of torture by our government. Bush's signing statement said that he reserves the right to use torture if it will prevent a terrorist attack.
A very important principle is at stake, because our democracy was founded on separation of powers, which serve as checks and balances. Bush’s signing statements assert that he has the authority not to enforce a law. Such conduct is contrary to the rule of law and contrary to separation of powers.
The Supreme Court has said liberty is destroyed, whenever one branch of government usurp power from another. A president, under our Constitution, has only two choices when a bill comes to his desk from the Congress. He can sign it, and if he does, he is duty bound to enact it and to enforce it. His second option is to veto it. After signing bills, Bush has treat the law as if it’s merely an advisory function of Congress and claims that as commander in chief, he has the authority not enforce the provisions of the law.
The task force reported that Bush not only disregards laws, but also charges that he has violated the Constitution, which he has twice sworn to up hold. At issue is Bush's assertion that it’s within his authority to disobey statutes that Congress passes.
The ABA insists that “signing statements” cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto. Bush’s use of signing statements amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a couple of years ago. The task force said the president has attached signing statements, as they're called, over 800 times, which is 200 more times than issued by all of the previous presidents combined.
It’s not just the number of signing statements, but also what they're saying. The most well-known example, is John McCain's bill, which outlawed the use of torture by our government. Bush's signing statement said that he reserves the right to use torture if it will prevent a terrorist attack.
A very important principle is at stake, because our democracy was founded on separation of powers, which serve as checks and balances. Bush’s signing statements assert that he has the authority not to enforce a law. Such conduct is contrary to the rule of law and contrary to separation of powers.
The Supreme Court has said liberty is destroyed, whenever one branch of government usurp power from another. A president, under our Constitution, has only two choices when a bill comes to his desk from the Congress. He can sign it, and if he does, he is duty bound to enact it and to enforce it. His second option is to veto it. After signing bills, Bush has treat the law as if it’s merely an advisory function of Congress and claims that as commander in chief, he has the authority not enforce the provisions of the law.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home