Some time ago I posted some comments on what I termed President Bush's "unprecedented use of so-called 'signing statements' in approving legislation, statements which say 'he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and constitutional grounds.' While spokesman Tony Snow says that these are not acts of civil disobedience, they are evidence that this President feels entitled to go it alone, not necessarily follow the laws he signs, and act as if he, and he alone, understands what is in the interest of US national security."
The American Bar Association is arguing that such signing statements are unconstitutional.
Let's keep in mind that the ABA and the Republican party have been traditionally at odds. The Bush Administration in particular has begun ignoring the ABA's ratings of candidates for the federal courts. I can't say for certain that this antipathy influences the ABA's opinion, but I can't rule it out either.
I have said that I believe the signing statements are problematic in terms of the Constitution. We cannot allow one branch of government to go it alone. We cannot, in particular, allow the President to say that he will not enforce a law simply on the basis of his own analysis. If he signs the law- or it is passed over his veto- he must follow it.
The ABA is correct to argue- whatever its motivations- that "the President has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws."
The question is, What next? Will the ABA encourage, and take, legal action to restore the balance to our three branch system? That is the issue they will take up soon.
As I mentioned the other day, in regards to the issue of people arrested for attempting to attend presidential speeches while wearing T-shirts or carrying signs critical of the President, we need to remember that presidential actions can become precedents that are hard to shake. Today's Republican President using such statements may become tomorrow's Democratic President doing the same. How will Republicans then feel?
If it's wrong, it's wrong. Using signing statements to undermine the constitutional process for enacting and enforcing legislation is wrong.
GP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
the ABA has ZERO standing to assume that only their candidates should be appointed to the Bench. They have their own agenda and I am not sure it always to the betterment of the nation
Signing statements are in anticipation of challenges and law suits. I think they are silly and foolish but they do clear up what the "intentions" were when a bill was enacted. I believe it borders dangerously on creating or amending legislation. A power specifically reserved for the legislature
interesting post
Here are some links that I believe will be interested
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
Post a Comment