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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (35183)	4/28/2009 11:36:36 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

trying to turn the Presidency into a unitary executive post; in opposition to the Constitution At least the very weak form of the unitary executive is entirely consistent with the constitution, stronger forms are controversial and debated, but it isn't a simple matter of being clearly against the constitution. Remember the 750 plus Bush signing statements? Signing statements are not unconstitutional and also have a long history going back to the early 1800s. Every recent president has used them. : Is George W. Bush the first President to issue signing statements? A: NO. Several sources trace “signing statements” back to James Monroe. Interesting early statements that include discussions about presidential doubt about legislation and the issue of how the president should proceed are found from Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Ulysses Grant. A brief overview can be found in the ABA Task Force cited below. Monroe’s messages did not look like what are today considered “signing statement.” Rather he informed Congress in a message January 17, 1822, that he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority. presidency.ucsb.edu Even more forcefully, Monroe sent another message dated April 6, 1822, (that refers to his January 17, 1822 message as having “imperfectly explained” his concerns) stating “If the right of the President to fill these original vacancies by the selection of officers from any branch of the whole military establishment was denied, he would be compelled to place in them officers of the same grade whose corps had been reduced, and they with them. The effect, therefore, of the law as to those appointments would be to legislate into office men who had been already legislated out of office, taking from the President all agency in their appointment. Such a construction would not only be subversive of the obvious principles of the Constitution, but utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the law itself, since it would provide offices for a particular grade, and fix every member of that grade in those offices, at a time when every other grade was reduced, and among them generals and other officers of the highest merit. It would also defeat every object of selection, since colonels of infantry would be placed at the head of regiments of artillery, a service in which they might have had no experience, and for which they might in consequence be unqualified.” presidency.ucsb.edu In May 1830, Andrew Jackson wrote an message to the House stating his understanding of the limits of an appropriation: “the phraseology of the section which appropriates the sum of $8,000 for the road from Detroit to Chicago may be construed to authorize the application of the appropriation for the continuance of the road beyond the limits of the Territory of Michigan, I desire to be understood as having approved this bill with the understanding that the road authorized by this section is not to be extended beyond the limits of the said Territory.” presidency.ucsb.edu Tyler, issued a prototypical “reluctant” signing statement, in which he signs a piece of legislation concerning legislative apportionment while announcing, for the record, that he thinks it is unconstitutional: presidency.ucsb.edu Polk in 1848 similarly warned that while he was signing legislation that established a government in the Oregon territory prohibiting slavery, that he would not have signed similar legislation that involved New Mexico and California south of the “Missouri Compromise Line”: presidency.ucsb.edu presidency.ucsb.edu As for 750 that number isn't correct. Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them? A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.” Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president? A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued. presidency.ucsb.edu

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (35183)	4/29/2009 8:20:44 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Josh's original comment you disagreed with: "Conservatives love the constitution more than anybody " We need look no further than the SCOTUS. We have four liberals on it that try to circumvent the Constitution whenever they can and three Conservatives who consistently work to uphold the Constitution. There are a couple wafflers between who vacillate based on the flavor of the day. Gee ; are you sure of that claim? I thought that we have seen many conservatives in all branches do things such as the last administration trying to turn the Presidency into a unitary executive post; ... Based on current events it would be difficult to surmise other that that you are writing about Obama here. He is a socialist. Everyone I know of defines socialist as liberal.