u235

These things aren't as bad as they sound and they're not as stable as Bush hopes. There are still a lot of bad things about them, but it's not all doom and gloom.

The concept is actually a good one in theory. When the president signs a law, he clarifies what he thinks the law means so that future cases can follow his thinking when he signed it. Sorta like a legal precedent, but not entirely. They're not binding in the same manner as precedent.

Most constitutional scholars claim that when used in the manner that Bush has been using them, they're a small baby step away from a line item veto, something the SCOTUS has already poo-pooed. That's one way for Congress to take the Office to task.

Beyond that, they don't really offer much protection. They're a statement that says what the Chief executive feels about the law. They're not binding. Just because that's how he feels doesn't require the legislative, judicial or even other parts of the executive branch to agree with him. The government is bound by the letter of the law, not the impression of the president.

The only reason he hasn't been called on them up to this point is that Congress and the courts are being supremely docile due to political affiliation.


To be honest, it's this hand holding that has always been my concern when one party controls too much of the government, regardless of which side it is.

The long term impact is still tough to tell. Constitutional scholars are fairly confident that with the next shake up in government many of these signing statements will be reeled in by whom ever is in control of Congress. Congress simply can’t afford to allow this sort of thing to go totally unchecked for too long or it’s the same as accepting that the power is the executives, not the legislatives.

Govt has grown and the sheep, excuse me, the citizens, expect it do manage and care for just about everything - but at the same time, lawyers, lobbyists and MSM make the job of management impossible using 10 billion pieces of legislation.

Govt doesn't work like magic. If it isn't allowed to do as it PLEASES, as it LIKES, and as it SEES NECESSARY it can't do what you expect it to do.

And don't bullshit anyone that you - meaning left, MSM and Dems (in that order of power) would review and agree with things that are "reasonable".

Nothing is "reasonable" by their/yours standards except that everything should be free and we should pay 90% income tax to fund those "free" things. You wouldn't pass anything reasonable because you just hate Bush.

It is understandable that opposition tries to maneuver govt into no-win position, even at the expense of the country or another country (see: left, media and Iraq all trying to make it fail and as bloody as possible), but don't expect Repubs not to see through this stupid game.

I may not like legal shortcuts taken by Bush, but in all honesty the main fault here lies with the left, progressives and dumb sheeple citizens creating police nanny state out of paperwork and Kafkesque tax-funded "agencies" in the first place. If the rule of law starts to resemble labirynth filled with a few million of legal bandits, it's gone anyway, so why bother if somebody bypasses some of the conflicting and nonsensical "rules"? The rule of law is gone anyway, and it wasn't Bush who killed it.

SCOTUS banned line-item veto?

And you dumb people bitch about Bush. Instead of bitching about legislation from the benches.

If democracy in USA will go to hell, it won't be because of Iraq or Bush or whoever, Clinton included believe it or not, but because of things like that ban.

Line-item veto is CRITICAL. It is absolutely necessary to curb natural pork & corruption tendencies of the parlament. Heck, I didn't know about this line-item veto being non-kosher. It's a very bad development.

No, Bush didn't kill the rule of law. It's not quite dead yet. But it's getting there. And things like this are part of the reason why. When a leader or leaders do not have a check on their powers, those power grow. As they grow, they take rights and freedoms from the citizenry. As the power ebbs from the public and into the hands of a limited few, tyranny is unavoidable. This is all the more true when those few go to such great efforts to hide this power struggle to make the public unwary of the loss until it is too late to change anything.

If the next 4 to 6 years don't have a dramatic power shift back away from Presidential authoritarianism, this country will have given up all rights to the claim 'Land of the Free'. I don't care if the Dems, Repubs or the libertarians do it. It must happen.

As to your comments about the line item veto, it was only in Federal usage for about 2 years during the Clinton Presidency. It was struck down by a 6-3 vote saying it violated the Presentment clause. Basically, the law must be passed in identical verbiage by both the Senate and House in order to become a law. If the President does a line item veto, the verbiage is different from what the House and Senate agreed upon. Thus they found it unconstitutional. Should be noted that those repubs you seem to revere so much, were on the majority that struck it down.