"Signing Statements"

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Somehow in all the talk about Bush bypassing Congress and the Constitution around a bunch of tearism issues, I missed this little innovation in the American legal process.

Bush could bypass new torture ban.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

Apparently he's making a habit now of doing this sort of thing.

Does this mean he really does have de facto unilaterial power? I mean, if Clinton was able to bring into question the meaning of the word "is", you'd think the sky would be the limit.

StoneMtn, have you seen much discussion of this in the wacky world of law?

Edited February 10, 2006 by Guest

[boiler]

I'm not sure any law banning torture in the US is anything more than just to appease the public. I really don't believe it has anything to do with the reality of what the US governemt does or doesn't do. Torture is something that probably works best behind closed doors and kept secret.

Case in point: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2795

[bradm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

has some background, and a reference a "definitive" article on the legalities of signing statements.

Aloha,

Brad

[boiler]

Thanks bradm. I find it interesting that the Supreme Court takes into account the signing statement when making final decisions

"The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements. Indeed, in two important decisions -- the Chadha and Bowsher decisions - the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws. Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too."

Does this mean tht the signing statments are as (if not more) important than the actual law itself?

...the President is bound by his oath of office and the "Take Care clause" to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed. And those duties require, in turn, that the President interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies.

However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution...

(quotes from wikipedia article bradm refrenced.)

[MarcO]

what did bradm do before wikipedia?

[bradm]

I used Google (and still do, for some things).

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

StoneMtn, have you seen much discussion of this in the wacky world of law?

Sorry, Evil, but I'm no expert on the law in the US.

I do know, however, that Bush has said before that, "It's up to the legislators to write laws, but it's up to the executive to interpret those laws."

I have no idea whether that's "good law" in the US or not, though.