Patriot Act Does Not Apply To Bush?

Holy crud guys. I take a few hours off to help move a fridge and this thread becomes a not-so-comic roast of Agent47. I happen to think that he is wrong about the Executive's perogative to change laws passed by congress and the line-item veto, but here's a perfect example of what I was talking about on the Sun Tsu tangent. You give up the issue to pursue an ad hominem approach and where does it get you? What did it get us in this thread? It took the spotlight off of the abuse of executive power and put it on why a given person isn't an ATSNN moderator. All well and good if you're really just here to "throw coconuts" (I have other suspicions) but it's against T&C to throw them at other members.


Look, signing statements are dangerous if any judicial or legislative authority is ascribed to them. This is newsworthy in my opinion, but there are certain standards that must be met if a source (ATSNN especially) is to be taken seriously as a news provider. I've got a few bones to pick with the voting system but I'll lay a fair wager that next time Bush makes a substantial signing statement I can construct a story that will be voted up.


That being dealt with, would anybody care to make a thorough case for the validity of signing statements; preferably more substantial than "look up the precedents" for yourself?

Perhaps you'll argue that the Chada ruling cited Signing Statements objecting to the legislative veto, but you must also be aware that the SCOTUS ultimately hung its hat on the Presentment clause in that case, which is rather foreboding for Signing Statements where used to challenge legislative history or to act as a line item veto.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Here, the action taken by the House pursuant to 244(c)(2) was essentially legislative in purpose and effect and thus was subject to the procedural requirements of Art. I, 7, for legislative action: passage by a majority of both Houses and presentation to the President. The one-House veto operated to overrule the Attorney General and mandate Chadha's deportation.
(snip)
Without the veto provision, this could have been achieved only by legislation requiring deportation

You might argue the same angle on Bowsher v. Synar but again, just because the court said the executive was right does not make the signing statement precedent; the Supreme court ruled on constitutional grounds.
www.oyez.org...

Under the law, if maximum allowable deficit amounts were exceeded, automatic cuts, as requested by the Comptroller General, would go into effect.
(snip)
The Court found that the duties which the Congress delegated to the Comptroller General did violate the doctrine of separation of powers and were unconstitutional. A two step process led Chief Justice Burger to arrive at this conclusion. First, in exploring the statute defining the provisions of the Comptroller General's office relating to the Congress's power of removal, it was clear to Burger that this officer was subservient to the legislative branch. Second, in examining the functions that this officer would carry out under the Deficit Control Act, Burger concluded that the Comptroller General was being asked to execute the laws and, thus, was intruding on the perogatives of the executive branch.

So a signing statement is a preemptive Amicus Curiae brief at best.

You may try to take the Monroe angle, but that's tricky since although I've found vague discriptions of it as an objection to congressional meddling with his Commander-in-chief powers, I have been utterly unable to find the text.
I've got a WATS for anyone who can find the text of Monroe's signing statement.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It took the spotlight off of the abuse of executive power and put it on why a given person isn't an ATSNN moderator. All well and good if you're really just here to "throw coconuts" (I have other suspicions) but it's against T&C to throw them at other members.

Throw political coconuts as is in regards to exposure of corruption, maybe you should pull off those "I'm okay, you're not" blinders. You do share of admonishment, escalation and promotion off topic banter, so I will that take advice as another one of your control issues.

It stands to reason by the volume of bills Bush has attached signing statements to, he intends to set a legal precedence and perhaps is setting up a unitary presidency. How's 4 more years grab ya.... ad infinetum.

Decent write up in regards to said topic:
Alito on Presidential Signing Statements

Pdf docs at the links:
The Unitary Executive During the Third Half-Century, 1889-1945
The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2004


Supreme court indifference and citizen apathy may toast our Constitution.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
so I will that take advice as another one of your control issues.

Take it how you want to take it; I aint the one who wrote the T&C. All I'm trying to do is suggest that our common opposition to this practice (a rare point of agreement between us which I'd like to have thought would be more pleasant) might be served by certain tactics better than others, especially when those other tactics end up spotlighting some random member over unconstitutional executive actions. How's that for apathy in the face of a threat to the constitution? "Man, we'll support the constitution later. I'm trying to burn down Agent47." Suit yourself. Don't ask me not to say i told you so.

he intends to set a legal precedence

Presidents don't make precedents, legally speaking. Providing that Justice Stevens doesn't take a dirt nap and get replaced by Alb. G, we should be OK. Despite conservative reputations, several of the justices that it is assumed Bush can depend on will actually make an occasional liberal ruling by virtue of following strict construction to it's logical end in a given case.

How's 4 more years grab ya.... ad infinetum.

It's a little late for Bush to issue a signing statement on the 22nd Amendment, even if that were possible. Furthermore, no executive office is charged with the enforcement of term limits, therefore no presidential power can be used to circumvent those without first defeating Congress and the SCOTUS. In other words, the threat of a 3rd term for Bush has nothing to do with signing statements- we'd have to talk about a flat out auto-coup to get to that point, and even then I doubt the Secret Service has the manpower to get Bush through a third term. Considering his popularity, or lackthereof, I'm astonished that he's defied Tecumseh's Curse even this long.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Presidents don't make precedents, legally speaking.

4 more years to infinity was a euphemism in regards to a unitary presidency.It was a joke, since there won't be any terms under a dictatorship. Egads, I wonder if you even have a sense of humor at times. How's Bush 4ever or here's to the next DNC King then.

You have to explain to me how you have derived that Bush's executive actions won't set any sort of legal precedence(s)?

Unitary executive theory -Wiki

"The novelty of the proposal previously discussed by this Group is the suggestion that Presidential signing statements be used to address questions of interpretation. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes law only when passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or enacted over his veto). Since the President's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. Yet in interpreting statutes, both courts and litigants (including lawyers in the Executive branch) invariably speak of "legislative" or "congressional" intent. Rarely if ever do courts or litigants inquire into the President's intent."
www.d-n-i.net...

The big immigration protests today has shown me the utter dichotomy of our times when we rather sit by the computer and yawn over the Patriot act, but the latinos will hit the streets for illegal immigration. So show me something that this downard spiral is over and maybe I wouldn't be so satirical.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
4 more years to infinity was a euphemism in regards to a unitary presidency. It was a joke, since there won't be any terms under a dictatorship. Egads, I wonder if you even have a sense of humor at times.

No, I don't have a sense of humor in this area. I used to, but late in the Clinton years, I started realizing that whenever I laughed at something a Republican said, assuming it was a joke, it turned out to be serious. I tried turning my sense of humor back on during the campaign season in 2000, but then the same thing happened again, this time with the Democrats.

You have to explain to me how you have derived that Bush's executive actions won't set any sort of legal precedence(s)?

Simple. The interpretation of the law rests with the Judiciary. An action in and of itself will not set a precedent, only the court's ruling on it will. There is ample "precedent" for me exceeding the speedlimit by as much as 50mph, but the courts have always ruled that I can't do that and have fined me accordingly.

The executive branch (explicitly the President IF the Supreme Court were to conclusively rule in favor of the President's unitary authority over all executive departments) can make regulations, however these regulations are not beyond the control of congress unless 1. The subject is ruled to be constitutionally reserved for the President (separation of powers) or 2. The Congress has legally delegated the power in question to the executive (prohibition of legislative veto). The legislative veto, by the way, can be done by proper legislation- that is, they'd have to pass a bill, presumably over the presidents veto- they just couldn't have a veto by resolution clause like the one that was struck Chada.

Since the domain of Presidential authority is so limited, and the office of President is not bound by Stare Decisis, no true precedent can be set- only a tradition of sorts, not unlike the unofficial two term limit that George Washington established, but which T. Roosevelt tried to violate and FDR did violate

Unitary executive theory -Wiki

Thanks for the link, but I was awake during civics in highschool. You're reading too much into this because you're playing into the sophistry of the theory when you should realize that the theory is little more than a thin excuse for desperate executives that will never have any standing unless the Supreme Court approves its application to every aspect of concern.

I've read the Alito memo that you quoted, but I take it with a grain of salt. Contrary to all the hype, the Supreme Court is still "5-4 Liberal" in a vacuum, although this will depend on the issue. You can't trust Kennedy on Roe with O'Connor gone for instance. Alito being on the SCOTUS is by no means an assurance that the court will stand by for a Unitary executive. Actually, with nobody left to impress or endear, even Alito probably knows that his memo was full of crap.
The Presentment clause is an obstacle to the assertions you quoted.

The big immigration protests today has shown me the utter dichotomy of our times. (snip)
So show me something that this downard spiral is over and maybe I wouldn't be so satirical.

I agree. We're going the way of Rome. We got to the top of the hill and celebrated till we forgot how to climb. Now we're sliding and most of us aren't even looking for a handhold, while those who've never had it this good are doing their best to get up where we we were.

You seem to think that there's something intellectual about laughing all the way down. If it makes you happy, run with it I guess. I prefer to learn how to climb and try to show others too.

Go play in the streets with the illegals and tell half-funny jokes if you like. If you're looking for me, I'll be working on my degree so I can actually get into the game instead of just attending the tailgate parties.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Jaryn
[I'll finish reading this whole thread in a few minutes, but for right now, I felt I had to stop and say:

I disagree completely with Agent47's viewpoint, but how much he has posted has nothing to do with whether his opinions/statements are valid or not! To try to argue against someone using this viewpoint is ridiculous and makes you seem petty and childish.

Talk is cheap

Direct experience is the master teacher. Don't have any experience, then don't expect me to consider your prose as relevant compared to those who have actually took the time and effort to walk the talk. Same reasoning goes into job positions, experience counts.

Children rattle off at the top of their heads and the world has plenty of inexperienced blowhards, so maybe you need to think about your ridiculous, petty and childish response that is absent of experience too.

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess I should have realized that you wouldn't care what I had to say since I don't have your 1377 posts, which therefore means I know nothing compared to you (in your opinion).

My final words on this: I have lost the respect I once had for you for such closed minded thinking. I'll now return to lurking and learning from others and continue to not have any credibility according to you.

Back to the debate at hand.