Signing Statement Statement
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent W a letter asking him to say just what exactly he means with his last Signing Statement attached to a postal reform bill. While its clearly rhetorical (I don't imaging W sitting at his desk composing a reply) it did get me thinking. In this 100 hours of doing the people's biznezz, why not add legislation dealing with these Signing Statements? I haven't heard any real good reason for them besides just "I like W and W likes Signing Statements, so I like Signing Statements." Just about everyone else thinks they skirt the Constitution. So now that the Dems are in and we have hopes for Checks & Balances, the Dems should make a move to reestablish the power of Congress. My bet is that there's enough GOPers who are uncomfortable having congressional bill's vetoed sans veto to get it passed. W will veto, which means that Congress must come up with 2/3's, no easy task. But if they do, the White House will sue and the Supreme Court will have to decide. Hopefully with only two years left in W's term and a GOP that just got spanked SCOTUS will realize that a permanent GOP Presidency is not guaranteed and will quit promoting an all powerful Executive Branch.
Granted I'm not hopeful about overturning these Signing Statements. But at least legislation banning them will get focus on them, which will hopefully curb this "well isn't that legislation just the cutest little thing" practice.
Posts
1 comment:
From a May 5,2006 NYTimes editorial:
"The founding fathers never conceived of anything like a signing statement. The idea was cooked up by Edwin Meese III, when he was the attorney general for Ronald Reagan, to expand presidential powers. He was helped by a young lawyer who was a true believer in the unitary presidency, a euphemism for an autocratic executive branch that ignores Congress and the courts. Unhappily, that lawyer, Samuel Alito Jr., is now on the Supreme Court."
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50C14FE345B0C768CDDAC0894DE404482
Sadly, many legislators seem to have almost as little regard for Congress' checks and balances role as Bush does, and see their offices as necessary stops along their political paths to the top job, or as a means to the end of incumbency and personal power. When perhaps the institution's staunchest defender is Robert Byrd, something about "with friends like these" comes to mind.
Post a Comment