Yet there seems to be an explanation missing for why this is the case even where the constition is disregarded by the executive on far broader issues.

Such as? Got any examples? So far all you’ve thrown at us is a series of vague hints and drak suspicions. See if you can absorb this idea: just because Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like something doesn’t mean it’s illegal or unconstitutional. It’s put up or shut up time. Show us the evidence. If there is any, which I doubt.

See if you had said your were only interested in whether the law or the consitution were boeyed then you’d have been in a whole lot of trouble.

Wrong again. You’re the one that started with the assumption that a signing statement was intrinsically something illegal. I’ve produced evidence to the contrary, but your eyes, ears, and mind are closed. Like the global warming cultists, you’re determined that any contrary evidence is to be disregarded at best, demonized at worst. To repeat: put up or shut up.

Yes, Kilo, I saw those items. So what?

So they contradict you on the two issues you raised. Really, was what I wrote confusing ?

But dig a little deeper.
You’ll find that signing statements go all the way back to James Monroe.

Why ? We just established their prior use or how frequently they are used isn’t the issue. What purpose would this deeper digging serve other than avoiding the issue ?

You’ll find that even Lawrence Tribe, an icon to liberals, has no issue with signing statements. I notice you didn’t blockquote that.

You can notice me not knowing or caring who that is while you’re at it.

As for the “kind of statements” – the controversy is political, period. My point holds – when Clinton made the same kind of statements, you held it as holy writ. And Pelosi never threatened lawsuits.

I’ve never expressed any support for any policy or action of Bill Clinton.
But that’s irrelevant as this wasn’t your point.
You’re suggesting that Bush needs to sign these statements where bills may contain unconstitutional terms and does so for that reason.

Yet there seems to be an explanation missing for why this is the case even where the constition is disregarded by the executive on far broader issues.

As for the ABA task force statement, that has neither force of law nor credibility. ABA has long since abandoned a nonpartisan stance and is essentially an arm of the Democrat party.

Er… okay. How is it relevant to the bipartisan assessment they made before becoming an evil constitution reading partisan cabal ?

To come full circle, I have no problem linking to sites with some balance in their information. I’m only interested in the facts. That’s “where I am.”
Comment by Great White Rat @ 5/10/2007 – 9:22 am

Good option that. See if you had said your were only interested in whether the law or the consitution were boeyed then you’d have been in a whole lot of trouble.

But dig a little deeper.

You’ll find that signing statements go all the way back to James Monroe. You’ll find that as far back as Andrew Jackson and John Tyler, presidents were issuing signing statements pointing out the unconstitutional aspects of bills sent to them – including the exact kind Bush is making.

You’ll find that even Lawrence Tribe, an icon to liberals, has no issue with signing statements. I notice you didn’t blockquote that.

As for the “kind of statements” – the controversy is political, period. My point holds – when Clinton made the same kind of statements, you held it as holy writ. And Pelosi never threatened lawsuits.

As for the ABA task force statement, that has neither force of law nor credibility. ABA has long since abandoned a nonpartisan stance and is essentially an arm of the Democrat party.

To come full circle, I have no problem linking to sites with some balance in their information. I’m only interested in the facts. That’s “where I am.”

By the way, one has to wonder where the likes of Tano, Kilo, and jpe were when Bill Clinton was issuing many more signing statements than Bush has.

One has to wonder where you are right now.
You’ve pointed out that Clinton used more signing statements than Bush and directed us to a website that points out that the number isn’t the issue:

“Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.”

And you’ve talked about a president having to do this to protect the constitution while pointing us to information like this:

In July 2006, an [American Bar Association] Task Force … found that these presidential assertions of constitutional authority “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” The report of the bipartisan commission, which relied on the American Presidency Project database can be found here

Yes, the president is charged with enforcing the laws. But he also has an duty to defend the Constitution, according to the oath of office.

So what if he can’t be in compliance with the Constitution if he enforces a particular law? What if there’s a part of it that he believes to be unconstitutional? That’s where the signing statement comes in. Basically, it’s where the president states what he thinks the law means. And it’s also where he can dispute the constitutionality of any part of it. And at that point it’s up to the courts (which is where td touched on the answer).

By the way, one has to wonder where the likes of Tano, Kilo, and jpe were when Bill Clinton was issuing many more signing statements than Bush has. Don’t think so? It’s true, according to the American Presidency Project at UCSB (hardly an outpost of the VRWC):

An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Legislating from the White House is most assuredly not part of Constitutional checks and balances.

This is actually his right to do so under our system of checks and balances.

We as a nation do not deserve the honor and sacrifice of our military. May God bless our military, and may they forgive us.

Who Will Answer

Well that would be exactly the case, now wouldnt it?

Seems that this issue has nothing to do with Pelosi not being able to get what she wants out of Congress, but with the President not carrying out the law that was passed.

How can you defend that?