Are Signing Statements an Abuse of Presidential Power? - Garry Wills

[aciel68]

Could someone give me a quick summary on what this is about

[neoleop4rd]

The main reason the issue is so tricky is that part of the presidential oath requires that the president declare his allegiance to the CONSTITUTION, and his willingness to defend it. Individual laws are not part of the constitution (the only way to change it is the amendment process, which has only succeeded 27 times), and thus the president, declaring that he is "defending" the constitution, can refuse to execute certain aspects of laws that he finds "unconstitutional."

[danielcooper1000]

We can never find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard Fine / Dr Shirley Moore /SBX 211. The fight to end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.

[jefevonQ]

This sounds like a non issue. There is no reason for the signing statement to exist as an issue. It holds no legal weight.

[thunderpants10]

go back to sleep

everything is under control

[planetdarwin]

I half-ass follow politics and really don't understand what this is about. What does it mean when a president signs a statement about unconstitutionality? I don't think most Americans understand this, which is perhaps why it just flies under (or over?) the radar....

[deathByStupid]

Simple version (at least to my understanding) is the president signs bills by congress into law. When he is signing the bill he puts a statement that basically he is unwilling to enforce this part of the law.

The constitution requires the president to either sign the bill or veto it. There is no allowance for middle ground.

In any case as I understand signing statements hold no weight in court so it is kind off a moot point. Courts have overuled signing statements in the past.

[planetdarwin]

@deathByStupid

thanks!

[JasonMelancon]

Hey, if Obama is continuing this violation of the constitution, continuing the move toward a king-like executive branch, maybe it's already time to call for impeachment. Let's put a stop to it.

[tetufrancia]

You should have tought of this when george bush was in power...

[JasonMelancon]

What makes you think I didn't?

[nlgatewood]

@JasonMelancon

ummm, yeah, maybe you should of been calling for this when Bush was doing it. And anyway, if it's not illegal right now, why would you impeach him for it? change the law.

[JasonMelancon]

Ummm, yeah, again, what makes you think I didn't? I had an Impeach Bush sticker on my car for three years, I gave money to the cause, I sent letters, the works. What did you do?

If you're serious about stopping the attack on the constitution, you can't possibly care what party the attack is coming from. I say this as a registered Democrat since 1991 who voted twice for Obama.

[nlgatewood]

lol, I can't say you didn't. But if it's legal, then bring up a case to the supreme court. Change the law. You can't impeach a president if he doesn't break the law.

[JasonMelancon]

Actually, you can.

The constitution says "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are impeachable. The Bush administrations lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were one of the major arguments for impeachment, even though those lies broke no formal statue that I'm aware of. Ramsey Clark, who started the cause, acknowledged these facts in his arguments.

So it doesn't have to be an offense prosecutable in criminal court. It just has to be really, really harmful.

[LeadPaintSandwich]

Tacos?

[newusername01]

sometimes

[j37a]

maybe.

[bananagraveyard]

Yes.

[pye333]

no.