Why Bush never uses a veto...

[Msterbeau]

I was listening to the program "Here and Now" on NPR at lunch and they were discussing president Bush's use of "signing statements". Other presidents have used these before but not at the level and scale Bush has.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

Comments?

PS. According to a gentleman on "Here and Now" the current count for Bush is in the neighborhood of 750.

[The_Dark]

Interesting.

I do note that his examples of the President abusing this power were hypothetical. He doesn't give any real example of the Presidents actual doing. He states some numbers and states that former Presidents did it too. He also states that it has become used more in the last 25 or so years... but he gives no real example. He also admits that as yet, none have been challenged or have caused any problems.

So um... Whats the problem?

[Msterbeau]

So um... Whats the problem?

What's the point of the legislative branch if he can ignore or otherwise render moot pieces of legislation? The main example I remember from the NPR program was the case of the ban on prisonor torture. He wrote a signing statement that basically instructs the military overseas to ignore it. If I heard things right, the threat of lawsuits regarding these signing statements is what kept them from being overused. But if these actions happen out of the country, there's no process for the people/entity involved to sue, and therefore no check against abuse.

I'm going to read more later.... I just wanted to toss it out here, because I've never heard of these things before.

[The_Dark]

First off... we can’t pass laws that affect other countries or what happens in them. People fight wars to make sure that it stays that way.

The point you’re missing is... these presidential writs are not legally binding. They won’t hold up in court. They are in all honesty only his opinion. Last I checked, becoming President doesn't take away the right to have your own opinion. They all boil down to on sentiment "I have issues with certain parts of this Bill you have presented to me for my signature, but the greater good this Bill will do over shadows that. Therefore, I will sign it with these grievances I would like you to later address."

[Msterbeau]

First off... we can’t pass laws that affect other countries or what happens in them. People fight wars to make sure that it stays that way.

The point you’re missing is... these presidential writs are not legally binding. They won’t hold up in court. They are in all honesty only his opinion. Last I checked, becoming President doesn't take away the right to have your own opinion. They all boil down to on sentiment "I have issues with certain parts of this Bill you have presented to me for my signature, but the greater good this Bill will do over shadows that. Therefore, I will sign it with these grievances I would like you to later address."

Legally, you'r correct.. they are "only opinions", but the reality is that he's using them to subtly circumvent legislation and by default, broaden the powers of the executive branch. Sure, they may well not hold up in court if someone sues... but in the meantime, he takes advantage of them. By the time a suit works it's way through the courts... he'll be gone and the damage done.

With regard to the overseas thing.. Congress passed a law that forbids soldiers and other agents of the US government from abusing or torturing. That certainly has repercussions in other sovereign nations besides our own, so we do, in fact pass laws that affect other countries in a direct way: through our citizens in their capacity as soldiers.

On another note, I'm surprised that the article uses examples instead of specific cases. If there are 750 of them it shouldn't be too hard to find one that illustrates his points.

[The_Dark]

yeah, but we don't HAVE to punish anyone for breaking a US law in another country. We do, for diplomicy sake, but we don;t have to.

I believe the best reason for not stating actual writs is that it would not support what he is trying to start shit over.

[Msterbeau]

UPDATE:

Looks like I'm not the only one who's concerned about this. Bush's own party is.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...085&ft=1&f=1001

[phee]

Interesting....

[BrassFusion]

I heard about that on All Things Considered yesterday... I really hadn't heard of signing statements before. Kind of appalling.

[Msterbeau]

I heard about that on All Things Considered yesterday... I really hadn't heard of signing statements before. Kind of appalling.

That's what I was thinking when I first heard about them and posted this thread.