It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Specter Preparing to Sue Bush in Federal Court Over Signing Statements

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

by Icarus Rising:

Again using national security concerns to invoke the mantle of secrecy afforded him by this (emerging international hoax of a) war on terror.


REPLY: The international war a hoax? I have news for you: a worlwide war against (radical) Islam has been going on for about 1400 years in one form or another all over the globe. It's WW3.

The investigation and capture of those who were on the verge of blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge was a hoax?..... not a breach of national Security?




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yeah, and the set-up that was the Sears Tower plot, too.

The topic is signing statements, and I blame myself for the out my "war on terror a hoax" claim has given you in avoiding further discussion of whether breaking a law is an illegal act except if you gave fair notice you were going to break it to begin with.

What I'm getting at is the handy justification the WOT has become for this administration making a big power grab and ignoring due process in a nation founded on constitutional law and a system of checks and balances.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

What I'm getting at is the handy justification the WOT has become for this administration making a big power grab and ignoring due process in a nation founded on constitutional law and a system of checks and balances.


Well said my friend well said, it seem that many around has forgotten about the patriot act and what having a body of government is all about.

Many only see the president as the king with unlimited powers.

What many has forgotten is . . . that he would be gone but he has open the doors for other presidents to get better and bigger powers. . .



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

by Icarus Rising
Yeah, and the set-up that was the Sears Tower plot, too.

The topic is signing statements, and I blame myself for the out my "war on terror a hoax" claim has given you in avoiding further discussion of whether breaking a law is an illegal act except if you gave fair notice you were going to break it to begin with.


REPLY: As been mentioned by many, the "liner notes" have no weight under the law. Presidents have been using it for 50 years, and no-one has found it to be a violation of any law.

Any links proving the Sears Tower plot was a "setup"? You obviously haven't done any research into the Brooklyn Bridge issue. Guess what? They were found using that horrific idea of tracing cell phone calls. How terrible for America!



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Again, my bad for bringing in extraneous tangents to this story.

Looks to me like you have pretty much conceded the signing statements, though an obvious attempt to dictate policy, have no legal merit whatsoever.

If the signing statements are, as you've implied, pointless and irrelevant, why, then, have they been issued in such volumes by this administration?

What is the President's motivation for issuing so many circumvential statements to the legislation he has signed? Is he laying the groundwork for a worst case scenario, "I told you so," and "I did it in the name of national security in a time of war," defense, if inquiries continue and he is called to account for his actions?

Why so many statements obviating his responsibility to follow the legislation he signs into law? Why so many exceptions for him? I don't see how you can continue to ignore the way this undermines our political process and the balance and separation of powers.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

by Icarus Rising:

Looks to me like you have pretty much conceded the signing statements, though an obvious attempt to dictate policy, have no legal merit whatsoever.

If the signing statements are, as you've implied, pointless and irrelevant, why, then, have they been issued in such volumes by this administration?
and the balance and separation of powers.


REPLY: All I can say, again, is that they've been used since, I believe, since Eisenhower. I never said they were irrelevant or pointless; just the opposite.

I recall (somewhat dimly) getting papers or tests back at school (and college), where the teacher/prof would make their notes of agreement or disagreement on the sides; basically the same thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

o.p.by zappafan1
The signing statements are not enforceable, have no legal weight, and it does not imply that Bush is not going to enforce the law. They are basically just little notes that he writes into the margin pertaining to constitutionality, or things he otherwise questions or has concerns about. It is merely a way to go on record as to his opinions


This is where I got the pointless and irrelevant impression from you.

Your comparison to margin notes from an instructor on a graded exam returned to you doesn't make sense to me in this context. Said margin notes would definitely pertain to the instructors enforceable policy, and any student would do well to pay close attention to such notes, as they would surely indicate the instructor's standards and expectations.

The President is "going on record" with his signing statements in what seems to be an effort to have his personal opinions become national policy over the collective will of the legislative branch.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

by Icarus Rising:

The President is "going on record" with his signing statements in what seems to be an effort to have his personal opinions become national policy over the collective will of the legislative branch.


REPLY: As it pertains to what Mr. Sphincter is "supposedly" going to do, all I can say, again, is that for 50 years other presidents have done the same thing, and no judges have said anything about it, 'nor has anyone considered it being unconstitutional.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Just an FYI Zappa fan...
Signing statements have been around since Monroe, but were rarely used, and when used, only as a triumphal "this is a great law" type reason...
in other words... they were little more than a presidential tack on, to the announcement that the law had passed...

Until Reagon that is... then everthing changed...
before reagon, only 75 presidential statements were EVER issued...

Reagon, Bush, Clinton saw another 247 issued...
It was at this time, that signing statements were seen as a way of increasing a presidents power... (Samuel Alito proposed the sneaky technique)
While Bush Jr has been in office, he has signed more than 130.
Those 130 contained more than 750 constitutional challenges...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

"they were little more than a presidential tack on....It was at this time, that signing statements were seen as a way of increasing a presidents power... (Samuel Alito proposed the sneaky technique)"


REPLY: So, all you said (above) is still the same for the ones Bush did.... you can't have it both ways; they're still a "tack-on." They're still just a mention of agreement or disagreement.


While Bush Jr has been in office, he has signed more than 130. Those 130 contained more than 750 constitutional challenges.


REPLY: Care to supply a link to those 750 challenges? Just curious. In any event, since the Supreme Court still leans a bit left, we'll see what happens if any challenges make it there.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The legality of this case, if Mr. Specter ends up filing suit, may rest on whether the courts construe signing statements as a violation of the "or take no action" clause of the Constitution's definition of the President's options when presented with a bill passed by Congress.

Is making a signing statement "taking action"? I say it is. It is a wholly inappropriate forum for the President to be issuing policy dictates basically amending legislation he has just signed onto law. They are an abuse of Presidential power in this administration, regardless of how they were used by past Presidents.

The President is bound by law to either sign or veto legislation passed by Congress. He can't just go "Ok,.....but.....this part doesn't apply to me."

One veto, and 750 signing statements, in six years. That pretty much says it all. This fly-by-night, under-the-radar technique of legislation manipulation has come to define this Presidency, and it needs to stop. Now.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

by Icarus Rising:
The legality of this case, if Mr. Specter ends up filing suit, may rest on whether the courts construe signing statements as a violation of the "or take no action" clause of the Constitution's definition of the President's options when presented with a bill passed by Congress. Is making a signing statement "taking action"? I say it is.


REPLY: That is exactly correct, and it doesn't matter what you (or I) think on the matter.


It is a wholly inappropriate forum for the President to be issuing policy dictates basically amending legislation he has just signed onto law.


REPLY: You should write him to let him know that you decided for the Supreme Court as to the legality of his liner notes. Again, nowhere has it been indicated that his notes amends anything.


One veto, and 750 signing statements, in six years. That pretty much says it all.


REPLY: You're confused.... your previous post said 130 signing statements. You have yet to provide the source for the 750 Constitutional challenges. I'd sure like to read them as I have an open mind on the issue.


This ..... under-the-radar technique of legislation manipulation.


REPLY: If it's so "under the radar", then how come it's so out in the open? He's made no secret about them. And, again, if they have no legal weight, nothing has been manipulated. This has yet to be determined.





[edit on 30-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I may be confused, but not about this.

You may have confused LazarusTheLong's post with mine.



(from the article linked in my opening post, again.)
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.


From a Constitutional, rule of law, separation of powers perspective, I believe there is only one way to see this issue, and blind, partisan support of a President who is blatantly out of line with this reliance on signing statements in lieu of doing his Constitutional duty when it comes to legislation passed by Congress isn't it.

If the courts can avoid playing politics with the issue, as you seem to be attempting to, I think they will see it the same way I do.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Good job btw Icarus.





You have voted Icarus Rising for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.




new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join