I think that there should be no signing statements... period. If what the President is signing is so unclear that he/she has to try to clarify what it means and how he/she is going to "execute" it, then he/she should just go ahead and veto it or sign it and try to "execute" it as he/she thinks it should be... Whew!

But forbidding the use of these unauthorized addenda as part of judicial interpretation does not solve the problem. In fact it's very possibly less than half the solution. The other difficulty is the effect that these abominations ["Oops, what Congress really meant to say, sez I the Pretzeldent Executer & Decider in Chief, was [blah blah blah half the time the exact opposite of what the legislation actually says]...."] have on the rest of the Executive portion of the government, the cabinet bureaucracy.

"Taking care that the laws be faithfully executed" is clearly not this guy's strong point. Hell, it wouldn't be mine either most likely if I lived in a world where I could just say "This means what I say it means because, well dammit, I say so." Unfortunately I have not lived in such a world since my youngest child turned about eight. After that he could out-argue me.

Would that somebody with similar powers undertake to out-argue the Congress to get them to understand that when dealing with some minds you have to spell. things. out. very. carefully. and. not. leave. any. room. for. misinterpretation intentional or otherwise.

This is a good start though. And huzzah to Charlie Savage, he needs a medal, a Thanks of a Grateful Nation, and a free bar tab for life at his favorite watering hole after the Restoration is underway.

Every day the Democratic front-runners take no position on this one is another day that increases my concern that the Beltway Dems don’t want to roll back Bush’s anti-Constitutional power grab: They want the powers for themselves.

ding ding ding ding...Johnny, tell the man what he's won?

Lambert suggests that the failure of the vast majority of Democrats, including Sens. Clinton and Obama, to co-sponsor or otherwise support Sen. Spector’s bill addressing Presidential Signing Statements in some way may be tied to a desire to wield unconstitutionally broad executive authority when they control the Executive. While it is good to be on guard against usurpation of excessive power and admirable to speak out against it, there may be other reasons this bill has not gathered wider support. Without in any way wishing to appear critical or disrespectful of Lambert’s passionate and diligent defense of citizen rights, here are a few possibilities:

1) This bill was introduced by a Republican Senator. Like it or not, one of the cardinal rules of political struggle is to deny your opponents anything admirable on which they can make political claims. At this point, no Republican is going to be allowed to advance a bill no matter how desirable the bill itself may seem.

2) Arlen Spector is little changed from his days of savaging Anita Hill in support of Clarence Thomas. Nobody besides the ever cheerfully optimistic John Kerry will support Spector in anything, because he always finds a way to undercut what seems like a reasonable approach. The Democrats have been too many times to the well with him only to get the water slopped all over them and the ground.

3) The bill is unconstitutional. Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has held for itself the final Constitutional authority on interpretation of the law and arbitration of legal conflicts, and has repeatedly held that it may examine and consider any source it wishes in the pursuit of its rulings. For Congress to deny by statutory law the right of the Court to examine and consider Presidential signing statements flies in the face of established judicial precedent and will undoubtedly be found to be unconstitutional. If Congress wishes to limit the authority of the courts on this matter, it must do so by Constitutional amendment.

4) There are not enough votes in the Senate to advance this bill to the floor. Pursuing it in this Congress is a waste of time. It strikes me as a shade unfair to criticize Democrats for pursuing meaningless or symbolic legislation on the one hand and then on the other to also criticize them for failing to pursue meaningless or symbolic legislation.

5) As Xan points out, this bill is at best a half-measure and does nothing to address the greater question of whether or not the Executive may unilaterally exempt itself from submission to the will of Congress as expressed under statutory law. It comes at this core issue in an indirect way that will ultimately fail.

6) Other means of effective redress already exist. All Presidential signing statements are in the public record. If Congress is dissatisfied with Presidential behavior it has the power to coerce through the appropriations process and ultimately by impeachment. Independently, the citizenry can petition the courts for relief. The real issue isn’t signing statements per se, because they can be valuable when reasonably formulated, but rather their content. This President has repeatedly asserted an authority independent of both statutory law and established interpretation of Constitutional law. Thus far, the courts have held against the Executive in these claims.

Surely this Administration’s unconstitutional actions must be not only curbed but reversed. Spector’s bill is an empty gesture and does nothing functional in achieving that goal. Sens. Clinton and Obama, personal ambitions aside, may simply be agreeing with 46 other Democratic Senators that this bill is a waste of time.

The above not withstanding, Lambert, keep on them, you are right to treat anyone in power with deep suspicion.

Further reading on signing statements and Marbury v. Madison:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/200601...
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/...
http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_co...

And for all of them there is a very simple remedy.

If Hillary and Obama don't like Spector's bill (and as I said, and as you showed, there are plenty of reasons not to like it) then they can introduce their own bill. They're Senators, and we're in the majority, so how hard can it be?

Their silence speaks volumes.

Goes back to my original view of Hillary: I don't think the Constitutional crisis we're in is even on her radar, and that, to my mind, unfits her for the Presidency.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

1) This bill was introduced by a Republican Senator. Like it or not, one of the cardinal rules of political struggle is to deny your opponents anything admirable on which they can make political claims. At this point, no Republican is going to be allowed to advance a bill no matter how desirable the bill itself may seem.

It is only too unfortunate that I agree with this. Such a shame.

PS: The fact that I agree with you isn't the shameful part. It's the fact that it's true.

Oh, and I am not anonymous coward! I posted my name!

...Like it or not, one of the cardinal rules of political struggle is to deny your opponents anything admirable on which they can make political claims...

The cardinal rule of a struggle depends on its nature.

At the risk of not seeming serious, the struggle we are now engaged in is for the existence of the Republic and to preserve the world we live in.

It seems likely that virtually none of the sane and serious people of Washington, with the possible exception of Al Gore when he's in town, see the struggle in this way.

Which is why they will lose it.

There's a storm coming.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Lambert, you’re always interesting to read. Could you draft some wording for the law you suggest the Senators introduce? It does have to be constitutional, avoid infringing on the powers of the federal courts - especially SCOTUS - and be embraceable by a veto-proof majority.

That the political calculus of denying Republicans any creditable legislative initiative is distasteful, well, no argument. But, it may be the lesser of two distasteful alternatives. Suppose the American people agree with Lambert and turn down Hillary Clinton for the Presidency. (And if she gets the nomination I think they will; same for Obama.) We will, by sad default, have another Republican to deal with for the next four years. Would we, as progressives, not feel at least marginally better about that if the Congress, and the Senate in particular, were more firmly in Democrat’s hands? Does that not justify any short-term discomfort about blocking Republican initiatives, especially ones like this that have no chance of legislative success but might provide Republican candidates with a veneer of respectability? Tough choices, sometimes.

I don’t care for Hillary either, for many reasons. The most important for me is that she will lose the general election. I would still take her over any Republican. Repeat, ANY Republican. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose.

Kelley B, don’t agree that no one in DC is concerned with the constitutional issues. I hear it mentioned a lot, and I don’t listen to politics all the time. It isn’t the only topic of discussion, but I think that is largely because with BushCo there are so many. It appears to me to be a matter of great concern to the Democratic leadership. I could be wrong, in which case I hope you will allow me to apologize as we man the barricades.

but I'm finally coming over to Shystee's way of thinking. We have to do what's needed to, er, get their attention.

("Unfit" isn't the same as "spawn of evil," eh?)

No, I'm not going to get into drafting legislation. I'm not a lawyer. The fact that they're not is what interests me. Let the experts come up with their drafts; if they care enough, they will.

And as far as Constitutional issues being of great concern to the Democratic leadership: If so, they haven't shown it by creating a consistent narrative and hammering on it in their talking points. It's as if, say, the two subpoena tracks were stovepiped by the committee chairs (to badly mix metaphors). Nobody is saying: "It's all the same thing," which would be so much more efficient in so many ways. (My answer for "the same thing" is, as you know, "the replacement of Constitutional government by authoritarian rule." That's the multigenerational Republican project, whose fruits we now see.)

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

but I'd rather rely on the original wording. No where in the Constitution are "signing statements" mentioned or authorized. Ergo, they're unconstitutional. Oh, and Chimpy's salary getting doubled in his first year? Yeah, he should've been thrown right the hell out of office and into jail for that. Not to mention, as a known deserter from the United States armed forces in a time of war, he's guilty of treason, which would both disqualify him and be grounds for impeachment.

See below ...

Article. II. - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

... what will Bush scribble on it next to his signature?

www.vastleft.com

Lambert, good buddy, don't sell your self short. You are at least as bright as any lawyer I've ever met, and unfortunately there have been a lot of them. My point was that there really isn't any clear path to ban or limit these signing statements by legislating statutory law. They will have to be combated individually through the use of Congressional power and/or judicial review. Whatever other shortcomings congressional Dems may have, failing to outlawing signing statements, or restricting SCOTUS’ discretion in considering them, isn’t one because it can’t be done.

Sarah, I am an informed citizen and familiar with the Constitution. It is as I sit within arms reach, in my copy of Henry Steele Commager’s Documents of American History, Second Edition, page 138. No need to reproduce the text here. Many things are not in the Constitution, yet still have to be dealt with; extra-constitutional does not necessarily mean un-constitutional. Signing statements are one of them.

It turns out that putting 500 lawyers in one place to write laws does not always result in clarity. Who’d have thought? Sometimes Presidents have in the past decided that signing a law in which some provisions or applications are ambiguous is preferable to a veto and restarting of the whole process. That’s certainly an arguable point, but there you are. When signing statements are used to clarify the Executive’s understanding of how the law is to be enforced, they generally serve a useful purpose by putting Congress, and the American people, on notice as to the President’s thinking. Nothing wrong with that. Bush, in contrast, has written signing statements that exempt him from following the law. This is substantively different from other Presidents, and is not acceptable. He will find these statements to be unenforceable as they are struck down by the courts. Failing that, Congress has the power of withholding appropriations and impeachment. Awkward tools to use, but still there.

The presidential pay raise was enacted in 1999, to become effective with the next President inaugurated. Constitutional prohibition is against a sitting president receiving a pay raise contemporaneously enacted. Bush would be overpaid at minimum wage, but the raise was not illegal.

As to his being a deserter, probably so. But no charges were filed and the records have, shockingly, disappeared. The system doesn’t work perfectly, and sometimes the guilty go free.

But don’t worry; there is plenty to prosecute in the way of illegality for this gang. To do it will require that Democrats gain control of the White House and the Justice Department. Whatever that takes, I’ll support. To adapt an expression from my youth: Envision RICO.

Lambert; I like metaphors too, mixed or straight. The skies are dark and the sea is cross, our ship of state is storm tossed and water is coming over the gunwales, but we are a long way from sinking. Slashing with verbal blades at the throats of those who have abused authority and rousting them from command is exactly what needs doing. All I’m suggesting is to be careful we don’t hack chunks out of our allies by the breadth of our strokes.

To me, it seems very simple why this has been sort of an avoided topic; however, hate-mongers also think that it's very simple why violence occurs in inner cities... so, take these as words that are open to interpretation.

The reason that no one is really bringing this up is mainly due to the fact that no one is really talking about it... period. If you'll notice, the major news networks - as a whole - have more or less been bereft of any sort of information that isn't asinine, old news, or a media press release with the channel's desired spin on it.

The general public isn't really being informed about what's going on in the world. The Internet became a pretty good place for that: if you happen to have the ability to take in a bunch of input, process it, and come up with logical conclusions - then the Internet is for you. You stuck your credit card into the 3.5"? Allow me point you to the television. This button for Hannity, this button for Billy'O, this button for Blitzer's BlOgO'RaMa!

The American public, as a whole, does not know what has happened - or to what extent. Maybe I'm wrong and it's the other extreme: maybe a large majority does know on some level, but unable to do anything. Since the second one, albeit a conceit, contradicts my point - I'll pretend I didn't say it.

It isn't that we need to "Open our eyes", "Look around us", "See what is going on". I'm twenty four years old, and cultured... just a little- slogans are worthless, and so is our system of government. Representative democracy is a great and wonderful thing... it was even set up with corruption in mind, and could self sustain itself. Capitalism the same in that sense, Smith knew - math adjusted accordingly. The two systems on top of each other kind of create this strange... caustic soda all over the nation, if you will. Democracy is great - but there are different flavors of it. Will I ever see that happen? Hahahahahaha. At least I'm a realist. Maybe, but I'm snickering as I say that.

I'm not trying to push an idea out. That paragraph is where the thought ends. Note the lack of "[...]which is why (ideological/political idea(l) here!) is better! Here are all of my supporting facts from non-peer reviewed sources!" - What I'm saying is that this isn't even a real political system anymore, this is just a game. You aren't voting for a leader, you're voting for a figure-head. Republicans? Yup. Democrats? Yup. Everyone? Not all, I'd bet most. Then again, that's just Intrawebs speculation.

If this were a test to see just how much elected leaders will let slide - under the circumstance that they get something in return; and, perhaps, a social experiment to see just how much of it that the public was willing to take... I'd go ahead and say we all failed at it. I normally joke and say that my generation is partly blameless at this point, as we'll only be able to really make our impacts upon the nation once the Boomers start to die (interesting fact: "thems fightin' words"); however, we're all to blame on this front. I mean, at least the draft forced the issue back home. I'd be willing to assume that someone took some decent notes on what national pressure points those years revealed - and how to avoid that sort of activism and activist spotlight ever, ever, ever again.

Then again, those are just my thoughts.
It was a pleasure leaving you a comment. People around me don't like to talk politics, those that do still approach political beliefs as a plane of two dimensions: "Please, tell me more about how the other people suck - I do not believe you have fully illustrated that point to me in the past few hours, which - by the way, novelty still hasn't worn off."

I'm the senior Senior Fellow around here; I'm not even a "boomer," more like a war baby, (2nd WW)

The activism of the sixties and seventies was messy, oh, and there was activism in the fifties, too, but we're talking about the civil rights movement, the beginning of the environmental movement, a critique of advancing corporatism, a demand for greater government transparency, a critique of our secret adventures around the world, and it was ordinary citizens, with help from the press, who called it right early on about Vietnam.

Or perhaps you were referring to the draft. I agree on that. My brother was draft-age during the worst of VietNam, and he had to seriously consider whether or not to serve his country in a war he loathed, or to go to jail, or to emigrate. For him the issue wasn't whether or not he was willing to die for his country, he saw the question as when and who are you willing to kill for your country.

But thanks for your comment; come back and talk politics with us anytime.

Like Kurt Vonnegut with his cigarettes, I keep working the fried foods and ice cream, but the damned stuff hasn't killed me yet. I hope you fix everything when my generation is gone.

www.vastleft.com

Of course they're in on it, they've always been in on it. We need to stop looking at people as republican or democrat and start looking at them as the greedy, and the insane. It's always been about money and power. Now who's the least greedy of them all...

The surest way to get really pissed of is to read the signing statements of our Legislator-In-Chief and compare them to the actual bills enacted.

For example, PL 109-163 the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006" - aside from foo-fooing torture, Bush caveats out of sections 905, 932, 1004, 1212, 1224, 1227 and 1304 - why? All these sections regard the requirement that the Congress be informed of spending in the "War on Terror." -- payments to the military industrial complex that is now feeding on the tit of Bush-Cheney -- from "Star Wars" to Iraq construction projects -- Congress need not know!

Signing statements are such a pet of Bush and their content really shows his true intentions and motivations -- Obama and Clinton have no say in the matter until a law is violated in preference to a signing statement and suit is brought.

I welcome the day of that Constitutional conflict.

But what do I know?

Worthy of a full post, I would say.

Oh, and on your Copperfield post, use the Edit tab to check what I did with HTML to make the post break between teaser and full post (using my superpowers as a Fellow of The Mighty Corrente building).

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Let my ego get out in front there, thought you were focused on me. Like a whipped dog, seeing what appeared to be a raised hand I immediately rolled over on my back and pissed all over my self.

How very optimistic of you to hope that the evidence-challenged will trouble themselves to read evidentiary documents. You are sweet, don’t ever change. :-)

I firmly believe that whenever the social fabric is distorted in a particular direction, it can only be pulled so far before it reaches a point where there is no longer sufficient force to hold the distortion in place. When the distorting force looses its grip, the release of tension is sudden, forceful and often unexpectedly harsh. We are at such a point.

There is good reason to expect that the remaining career staff in the Justice Department, once released from the purgatory of BushCo, will rise up in retribution and, in BushSpeak, smite the evildoers. This gang of criminals has obstruction of justice, wire and mail fraud, and conspiracy wrapped all around it. Once the cracks start, and the big one was Abramoff, there will be no stopping it. High profile RICO cases can make a prosecutor’s career. Taking down a whole administration, maybe all the way to the top, will be more than the new crop of US Attorneys will be able to resist. Or so I hope. You’re just a young thing; you’ll get to see it, never fear.