home

ABA Investigates Signing Statements

by TChris

If Congress won't investigate the president, it's up to the ABA. The trade group for lawyers has already investigated domestic spying. Now it's tackling the president's reliance on signing statements.

The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.

The signing statements task force includes former Rep. Mickey Edwards, a Republican from Oklahoma, who explains:

"I think one of the most critical issues in the country right now is the extent to which the White House has tried to expand its powers and basically tried to cut the legislative branch out of its own constitutionally equal role, and the signing statements are a particularly egregious example of that."

Retired Judge Patricia Wald, also serving on the task force, is less worried about the impact of signing statements on the judiciary than on administrative agencies:

"If Congress passes a law telling the people in the bureaucracy that `this is what you should do,' and the president signs it but attaches a statement saying `I don't want you to do it,' how is that going to affect the motivation of the bureaucracy?" she said.

< Mule Racing News | Investigation of NC Prosecutors Drags On >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarchDancer on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:40:03 AM EST
    I realize that any investigation of this administration is one more of many eye-openers to the closed cabal of Bush and cohorts. Other than that important fact, what can come of this investigation by the ABA? Congress has been aware for years and done nothing. To my knowledge the MSM didn't start publishing the truth until the last year (??). If a new law were to develop, wouldn't Bush just commit another signing statement felony, further destroying our Constitution? Full of cynicism this morning, aren't I?

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:53:15 AM EST
    The signing statements task force includes former Rep. Mickey Edwards, a Republican from Oklahoma, who explains:
    "I think one of the most critical issues in the country right now is the extent to which the White House has tried to expand its powers and basically tried to cut the legislative branch out of its own constitutionally equal role, and the signing statements are a particularly egregious example of that."
    I hate to dump on a guy who may be starting to come around, but whose fault is that?

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:22:45 AM EST
    It puts the people who work in the executive branch in a very difficult position. Imagine if your boss told you to go through a red light or not claim under the table cash drug money that was paying your salary. What to do. Well the SC has just made those who work for the government criminals if they blow the whistle. If they get caught breaking the law because Bush said it was OK do you think bossman Bush will stick up for them? No. The employees are the ones who are at risk with Bush's signing statements.

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:40:05 AM EST
    personally, i've been somewhat confused for several years now. when did we switch back to a divine right monarchy? yes, congress has abrogated its responsibilities in this area, but those same people keep getting re-elected. this tells us that the majority of the voting public either doesn't care, or hasn't a clue. either way, it doesn't bode well for the country.
    we get the government we deserve.
    sorry, can't recall who to attribute that to.

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    The signing statement controversy is certainly indicative of Bush's disdain toward the legislature and his overweaning concept of his own power. On the other hand, it would be a lot more salient issue if someone could point out a concrete example of a signing statement in which Bush expressed disagreement with a law, and then clearly refused to implement or enforce it; in other words, to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I seem to recall a certain importance attached to that language. . . . jim strain in san diego.

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    Signing statements sure seems like an abuse of power to this Republican. If a president doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he signs it, how can he claim he's above the law?? I don't see where he gets such authority in the Constitution.

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    Well somebody has to step up to the plate. There have to be some functional adults lurking around this country somewhere....

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#8)
    by RF on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 05:57:02 AM EST
    Posted by MarchDancer June 5, 2006 09:40 AM Later today, I hope to return here and read a post from TalkLeft regarding MarchDancer's interrogative: "... what can come of this investigation by the ABA? ..." Jokes about Post Turtles are comical, and quite true, but the only thing that really snags my attention these days is legal business ala crimes of the century, out in the open, akin to US citizens deprived of basic rights, held on flimsy or no hard evidence, and gagged... Treasonous political activity... I could go on,,, I will STOP (but arBusto, Inc won't)

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#9)
    by RF on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 05:57:41 AM EST
    Posted by MarchDancer June 5, 2006 09:40 AM Later today, I would like to return here and read a post from TalkLeft regarding MarchDancer's interrogative: "... what can come of this investigation by the ABA? ..." Jokes about Post Turtles are comical, and quite true, but the only thing that really snags my attention these days is legal business ala crimes of the century, out in the open, akin to US citizens deprived of basic rights, held on flimsy or no hard evidence, and gagged... Treasonous political activity... I could go on,,, I will STOP (but arBusto, Inc won't)

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#10)
    by RF on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 05:59:08 AM EST
    Crappola Double Post-it due to "no Entry ID" error Mozilla FireFox 1.5.04 Apologies for the double-triple in advance- RF in NH

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:37:10 AM EST
    Maybe the ABA could disbar Roberts over this? Otherwise, I dont see any enforcement possible. As for refusal to uphold the law, the military is redacting anti-torture language from interrogation field manuals. Geneva is the law of the US, as we signed it.

    Re: ABA Investigates Signing Statements (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 09:02:33 AM EST
    JS in SD asks
    if someone could point out a concrete example of a signing statement in which Bush expressed disagreement with a law, and then clearly refused to implement or enforce it; in other words, to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I seem to recall a certain importance attached to that language.
    From NY Review of Books
    Bush has claimed the right to ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president. He has unilaterally overruled Congress on a broad range of matters, refusing, for example, to accept a requirement for more diversity in awarding government science scholarships. He has overruled numerous provisions of congressional appropriations bills that he felt impinged on his executive power. He has also overruled Congress's requirement that he report back to it on how he has implemented a number of laws. Moreover, he has refused to enforce laws protecting whistle-blowers and providing safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Bush has also used signing statements to place severe limits on the inspectors general created by Congress to oversee federal activities, including two officials who were supposed to inspect and report to Congress on the US occupation of Iraq.
    more specific,
    Another egregious use of the signing statements occurred when Bush said in March that, in interpreting the bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act, he would ignore the requirement that the president report to Congress on the steps taken to implement the law, thus denying that the executive should be accountable to Congress.
    More background on signing statements here