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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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)"
While Bush Jr has been in office, he has signed more than 130. Those 130 contained more than 750 constitutional challenges.
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.
It is a wholly inappropriate forum for the President to be issuing policy dictates basically amending legislation he has just signed onto law.
One veto, and 750 signing statements, in six years. That pretty much says it all.
This ..... under-the-radar technique of legislation manipulation.
(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.