30% of laws ignored

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,006
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
If, on January 21, 2009, Georgie boy is still sitting behind the desk in the Oval office, then we have dictatorial issues. Until then, despite the questionable Constitutionality of the practice, he's not doing anything that has been deemed illegal. You and I both know that if he were the Democrats would be on him like white on rice.

I am of the opinion that Congress should work to eliminate this little gem of Presidential power. But they won't. And they won't for one reason. Because their guy might be the next President, and they certainly want him (or her) to have the same powers as the last guy. I don't like the use of signing statements, I don't care what party is in office.
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
by Brian Beutler

"commissioned by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and released today -- confirms that Bush's use of presidential signing statements are, in fact, utterly without precedent."

http://www.alternet.org/story/54543/


I think they are doing something about it.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,006
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
Arlen Specter has tried before.

From the article you linked:

"In 2006, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced legislation that would have forbidden federal courts from legitimating presidential signing statements and allowed Congress to bring up the question of their constitutionality before the Supreme Court. But the bill never made it to the Senate floor and expired at the end of the 109th Congress."

Let's hope that new efforts to eliminate this little gem of Presidential power meets with more success that dying quietly in the back rooms of Congress. I don't like the idea of any President having this ability, even one I vote for.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top