Presidential Signing Statements
By Texas Rainmaker on Clinton
The AP is reporting a story today about how George W. Bush is on a one-man tour of law-breaking and general malfeasance. It stems from his use of “signing statements” (an executive branch’s proclamation coinciding with the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch that sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law).
<<< Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress
A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?
Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.
That’s the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee… >>>
The article goes on to paint Bush in a broad brush of lawlessness, using phrases like “ignores the law” and “abuse of power”.
But this story isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. You see, Presidential Signing Statements have been used since James Monroe and are essentially the President’s way of expressing his opinion in regards to all or part of a law. Ultimately, as Bush has asserted, it’s up to the courts to interpret the law. Period.
The President made this statement regarding Presidential Signing Statements:
<<< If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm’n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President’s constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect. >>>
Yep, those were the words of the President in defense of the Signing Statements. The words of President Bill Clinton, that is. Of course, don’t expect to find any MSM reports from the 1990s about the use of Signing Statements being “abuse of power” or “ignoring of the law”.
texasrainmaker.com
news.yahoo.com
usdoj.gov |
