The lead article in yesterday's Boston Globe was Bush challenges hundreds of laws about the 750 signing statements Bush has issued. It's long but it's a good read. Signing statements started under Reagan and were thought up by Ed Meese. Now Justice Samuel Alito wrote some memos at the time saying they should be used in areas of ambiguity.
However Bush has issued hundreds of them and uses them to say he can explicitly ignore parts of laws. Rather than veto a bill, which is then subject to a Congressional override (though with a Republican Congress that seems unlikely) he just signs the bill into law and then writes a signing statement saying he can ignore parts that he wants. A sidebar to the article lists scary examples.
1 comment:
That is interesting. I think much of it is the as-designed checks and balances of the 3 branches of government. Congress cannot legislate to restrict the executive branch; the judicial branch can effectively revoke, limit, narrow, and clarify laws, etc... The executive branch may actually have the proverbial leg to stand on on some of these...so I think it would be up to someone to bring suit on these issues for clarification by the judicial branch. I think this is normal jockeying of the three branches of governement...although I think the power of the executive branch is historically high now...but it has been in the past at some times as well. The signing statement brings to light the area of potential conflict of these laws; however I can't imagine it having any binding force. It seems almost like a line-item veto, which of course is not legal. When I sign a document...be it a purchase-and-sale agreement or any other contract....it is sort of binary...you sign or you don't....little people like me can't add caveats or signing statements that mean anything.
Post a Comment