American Bar Association says Bush is violating the Constitution

[Superman]

Lawyers decry Bush's legal interpretations


WASHINGTON - President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.

ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.

The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.

Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.

"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."

Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito — now the newest Supreme Court justice.

The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724...gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--


800 times in 6 years over 600 from all other presidents?

 

[War Lord]

I doubt the ABA is correct on this. If they were, his signing additions to bills or exemptions could easily be defeated in congress.

 

[Matt]

I doubt the ABA is correct on this. If they were, his signing additions to bills or exemptions could easily be defeated in congress.

A Republican Congress. Ah but wait, by Jonty's logic only Democrats are the biased ones.

 

[War Lord]

A Republican Congress. Ah but wait, by Jonty's logic only Democrats are the biased ones.

Let me rephrase my statement then.

I doubt the ABA is correct on this. If they were, his signing additions to bills or exemptions could easily be defeated in the still liberal majority Supreme court.

Better?

 

[Matt]

Let me rephrase my statement then.

I doubt the ABA is correct on this. If they were, his signing additions to bills or exemptions could easily be defeated in the still liberal majority Supreme court.

Better?

'Liberal majority supreme court'?

You = nutjob

 

[Super Flight]

tthats no surprise... s.o.b's

lol

 

[Superman]

Specter seeks to challenge Bush's power on bills

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Senate Republican said on Monday he will challenge U.S. President George W. Bush's practice of claiming a right to ignore or not enforce sections of bills that he signs into law.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he plans to introduce legislation this week that would give the U.S. Congress the right to bring a lawsuit against Bush's "signing statements."

Bush has used these statements to reserve the right not to enforce certain provisions of laws if he believes they impinge on his authority or interpretation of the Constitution.

An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the U.S. constitution by issuing more than 800 signing statements to highlight provisions of laws he might not enforce, more than every previous U.S. president combined.

ABA President Michael Greco noted that under the Constitution there is a balance of power in which Congress is to pass bills and the president is to sign or veto them, and give lawmakers an opportunity to override any veto.

"By using a signing statement to ignore an entire or portions of a new law, the president undermines this entire system of checks and balances," Greco told reporters in releasing the report.

Speaking in the Senate, Specter said his legislation would authorize a judicial review, with the goal of having such actions "declared unconstitutional."

The White House has defended signing statements, saying they have been used by past presidents and help the public understand how a given law will be enforced and can provide guidance to courts.

For example, Bush signed a bill banning the torture of U.S.-held prisoners, but used a signing statement to signal that he might bypass the ban.

He has also used them to show that he might ignore provisions in an anti-terrorism law seeking more congressional oversight and reject a requirement that government scientists transmit findings to Congress uncensored.

Specter's Judiciary Committee held a hearing on presidential signing statements last month and he also concluded they "threaten our separation of powers."

Specter said his staff was drafting a bill to challenge signing statements with Bruce Fein, a former member of the Reagan administration who also served on the ABA task force.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060724...j3vtIUGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

 

[Superman]

This is nothing more than a slick way for Bush to try to have a Line Item Veto and the supreme court has said that's unconstitutional.

 

[C.F. Kane]

You would think that a President is given enough power during wartime without giving the Executive branch the option to bypass congress

 

[Superman]

What I want to know is how many more times does Bush have to break the law before Congress gets off it's ass and does something about it?

 

[logansoldcigar]

when its something thats actually important.

Like getting noshed off and then denying it.

 

[Superman]

That really pisses me off. Clinton gets a BJ and the Republicans goes ape***** and spend millions to get him but Bush wipes his ass with the Constitution and most Republicans couldn't care less.

 

[logansoldcigar]

This is America. the body count on a movie is in the dozens, fine. no, wait, we saw a pointy female nipple for a second. that better be an R for sexual nudity.a country where a broadcaster got the biggest fine ever cos janet Jackson got a Boob out (even though the nipple was covered), rather than them getting the fine cos it were a floppy and unattractive boob. Too much emphasis on the evils of sex and sexuality. Get the collective stick out of yer collective asses about that, and start worrying about the important stuff.

 

[Axid]

it's easy to bake a pretty cake

 

[Green Goblin 1964]

i like bagels!!

 

[Future Prez]

This is a blantent crime. President Bush, like his predecessor, should be held to the full extent of the law. (Although Clinton didn't commit crime, he only demoralized himself.) I have read these reports before, and its disgusting to see just how partisan Congress really is, and there is no better example. The signing statements are wrong in every sense, as they violate every part of "Balance of Powers".
IMO, his most offensive signing statement was on John McCain's (BI-PARTISAN) anti-torture bill. Sure Bush signed it, but he added this: "The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Pure BS

 

[Superman79]

Frankly as a law student I take what the ABA says with a grain of salt. The ABA leadership is notorious for an extreme left wing bent. Not saying they are right or wrong, just that the things they claim should be scrutinized for political leanings...

 

[jaguarr]

Specter seeks to challenge Bush's power on bills

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Senate Republican said on Monday he will challenge U.S. President George W. Bush's practice of claiming a right to ignore or not enforce sections of bills that he signs into law.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he plans to introduce legislation this week that would give the U.S. Congress the right to bring a lawsuit against Bush's "signing statements."

Bush has used these statements to reserve the right not to enforce certain provisions of laws if he believes they impinge on his authority or interpretation of the Constitution.

An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the U.S. constitution by issuing more than 800 signing statements to highlight provisions of laws he might not enforce, more than every previous U.S. president combined.

ABA President Michael Greco noted that under the Constitution there is a balance of power in which Congress is to pass bills and the president is to sign or veto them, and give lawmakers an opportunity to override any veto.

"By using a signing statement to ignore an entire or portions of a new law, the president undermines this entire system of checks and balances," Greco told reporters in releasing the report.

Speaking in the Senate, Specter said his legislation would authorize a judicial review, with the goal of having such actions "declared unconstitutional."

The White House has defended signing statements, saying they have been used by past presidents and help the public understand how a given law will be enforced and can provide guidance to courts.

For example, Bush signed a bill banning the torture of U.S.-held prisoners, but used a signing statement to signal that he might bypass the ban.

He has also used them to show that he might ignore provisions in an anti-terrorism law seeking more congressional oversight and reject a requirement that government scientists transmit findings to Congress uncensored.

Specter's Judiciary Committee held a hearing on presidential signing statements last month and he also concluded they "threaten our separation of powers."

Specter said his staff was drafting a bill to challenge signing statements with Bruce Fein, a former member of the Reagan administration who also served on the ABA task force.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060724/pl_nm/congress_bush_dc_1;_ylt=AmM0zygD8T1yJBMhOj3vtIUGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

Specter has really impressed me this year. If every Republican were like him, I'd probably actually vote for a few of 'em.

jag, not a Democrat, either...

 

[Armand Z Trip]

This is America. the body count on a movie is in the dozens, fine. no, wait, we saw a pointy female nipple for a second. that better be an R for sexual nudity.a country where a broadcaster got the biggest fine ever cos janet Jackson got a Boob out (even though the nipple was covered), rather than them getting the fine cos it were a floppy and unattractive boob. Too much emphasis on the evils of sex and sexuality. Get the collective stick out of yer collective asses about that, and start worrying about the important stuff.

It's like Chris Rock said, 20 year old titty - community titty, 40 year old titty - keep that private.

I think on the weekend William F Buckley, the father of modern conservatism stated Bush is not a conservative, that he has let the movement down and if he was a European Primeminister he would of retired or been fired by now. He routinely breaks the law and yet the Fox news watching cousin humpers are still totally loyal. He can do no wrong.

 

[jaguarr]

It's like Chris Rock said, 20 year old titty - community titty, 40 year old titty - keep that private.

I think on the weekend William F Buckley, the father of modern conservatism stated Bush is not a conservative, that he has let the movement down and if he was a European Primeminister he would of retired or been fired by now. He routinely breaks the law and yet the Fox news watching cousin humpers are still totally loyal. He can do no wrong.

The REAL conservatives in this country have been displaying a HUGE backlash against Bush and his administration the last 18 months or so. BushCo are a bunch of neo-conservatives who proclaim themselves regular conservatives, and it's just not the case.

jag

 

[PLAS]

ohh, how I long the bad ole days of Technocrats and the Neoliberals here in Mexico

 

[sinewave]

This is America. the body count on a movie is in the dozens, fine. no, wait, we saw a pointy female nipple for a second. that better be an R for sexual nudity.a country where a broadcaster got the biggest fine ever cos janet Jackson got a Boob out (even though the nipple was covered), rather than them getting the fine cos it were a floppy and unattractive boob. Too much emphasis on the evils of sex and sexuality. Get the collective stick out of yer collective asses about that, and start worrying about the important stuff.

we need to shelter our children. afterall, it takes a villiage to raise a child.

 

[sinewave]

what was that old quote from bush about the constitution just being piece of g0ddamned paper or something like that?

 

[maxwell's demon]

))<>((
forever

 

[War Lord]

This is nothing more than a slick way for Bush to try to have a Line Item Veto and the supreme court has said that's unconstitutional.

The President should have line veto, it's the only way those earmarks can be controlled without getting rid of vital spending, becasue congress doesn't have much of an appetite for controlling unnecessary spending.