Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (303263)	9/15/2006 2:39:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1580066

Link? I provided one from the Clinton administrations justice department defending such signing statements. Also see "A look at the Clinton record of the use of the presidential signing statement shows that Clinton used the constitutional signing statement less than his predecessor (105 to 146), but still more than the Reagan administration (105 to 71)." "And like the Bush administration, President Clinton in at least three separate instances asked the OLC to issue opinions either buttressing the president’s authority to decline to enforce provisions of a statute or to direct inferior officers on how to implement the terms of a constitutional signing statement, and in two additional cases, the OLC wrote highly expansive and detailed memorandum on the legal significance of the constitutionally-based signing statement." mpsa.indiana.edu Link and commentary found at floppingaces.net The PDF also refrences a signing statement of that type by Carter, but as far as I can tell it took off under Reagan (before Reagan it happened but was rare). -- Here is a link from someone who opposes the use of signing statements "President Bush has expressed his own commitment to the unitary executive theory through his signing statements, restricting enforcement of more than 750 new statutes, in which he states which parts of new legislation he intends to enforce. These signing statements probably do violate separation of powers, as Democratic politicians contend, but so did Clinton's signing statements restricting enforcement of 140 statutes." civilliberty.about.com So maybe Bush is using them about 7 times as often as Clinton (750 compared to 140 and also Bush's 2nd term still has a couple of years)

To: combjelly who wrote (303263)	9/16/2006 4:23:18 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580066

I'm fairly sure that's not true, although I think it is likely that no other president has used such signing statements as often." Link? Should have known......signing statements started under Reagan. "Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented. Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it. But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president. boston.com