I assume we won't. Most likely, though, we'll elect somebody -- into a situation in which the traditional restraints on executive power have failed systematically.
The traditional restraints on this particular guy's executive power failed when voters re-elected him in 2012. Short of impeachment, that's the most powerful tool we have. And it wasn't the tool that failed, it was the voting citizenry.
I have never liked the idea of signing statements. I believe them to be unconstitutional and a violation of the oath of office. As the article notes, the only branch which could rule on this is the SCOTUS and they're demurring from doing so. If the President believes a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional, then he has a remedy for that. It's called a veto. If he chooses not to execute this veto, or if Congress overrides it, then he can seek relief from the Supreme Court.
What a signing statement amounts to is a veto by proxy, or line item veto. A President who refuses to enforce (or obey, for that matter) a law passed by Congress and signed by the Administration is in violation of his or her oath of office, and that OUGHT to be an impeachable offense. And yes, that includes Republican Presidents who disagree with a law, sign it, and refuse to abide by it.
I don't have a problem with signing statements, per se. Presidents are allowed to register their objections, even as they sign the bill or allow it to pass into law by doing nothing else. They just cannot, legitimately, act on those objections, except as the objections contribute to the record when Presidents or anyone else takes the matter to the Supremes--who must decline to hear it, unless and until a valid constitutionality of the law question can be raised. Given constitutionality, what the law is or is not is a political matter, not a legal one. The courts must stay out, and the President must obey and enforce.
On a slightly separate matter, I do have a problem with this claim from Yahoo! (eliding the grammar fails): ...the three-way dispute, between President Obama, Congress and the government of Iran....
There is no three-way dispute here; the law in question is a purely domestic one, and Iran has nothing to say on the matter. Full stop.
[W]e'll elect somebody -- into a situation in which the traditional restraints on executive power have failed systematically.
Here will be a test of character, an opportunity to develop/improve a reputation for honorability, and a measure of whether the man will keep the implied promise he made when he stood for office and the explicit promise he makes when he swears his oath of office.
Eric, I will agree with you, insofar as if we stipulate that a signing statement is no more or less than a President making a side note of "I don't like this, but I'm signing it anyway". In effect, nothing more important than someone whining that they didn't get their way. The problem is, Presidents treat signing statements as if they're actual binding vetos. "I'm signing this, but I don't believe I have any obligation to actually obey it." And up to a point, sure, you can SAY that if you like, Mr. President, but the instant you treat it as anything other than law (or challenge its Constitutionality in court) then you are violating your oath of office and should likely be impeached.
8 comments:
Of course, it helps if we don't re-elect him.
I assume we won't. Most likely, though, we'll elect somebody -- into a situation in which the traditional restraints on executive power have failed systematically.
The traditional restraints on this particular guy's executive power failed when voters re-elected him in 2012. Short of impeachment, that's the most powerful tool we have. And it wasn't the tool that failed, it was the voting citizenry.
I have never liked the idea of signing statements. I believe them to be unconstitutional and a violation of the oath of office. As the article notes, the only branch which could rule on this is the SCOTUS and they're demurring from doing so. If the President believes a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional, then he has a remedy for that. It's called a veto. If he chooses not to execute this veto, or if Congress overrides it, then he can seek relief from the Supreme Court.
What a signing statement amounts to is a veto by proxy, or line item veto. A President who refuses to enforce (or obey, for that matter) a law passed by Congress and signed by the Administration is in violation of his or her oath of office, and that OUGHT to be an impeachable offense. And yes, that includes Republican Presidents who disagree with a law, sign it, and refuse to abide by it.
I don't have a problem with signing statements, per se. Presidents are allowed to register their objections, even as they sign the bill or allow it to pass into law by doing nothing else. They just cannot, legitimately, act on those objections, except as the objections contribute to the record when Presidents or anyone else takes the matter to the Supremes--who must decline to hear it, unless and until a valid constitutionality of the law question can be raised. Given constitutionality, what the law is or is not is a political matter, not a legal one. The courts must stay out, and the President must obey and enforce.
On a slightly separate matter, I do have a problem with this claim from Yahoo! (eliding the grammar fails): ...the three-way dispute, between President Obama, Congress and the government of Iran....
There is no three-way dispute here; the law in question is a purely domestic one, and Iran has nothing to say on the matter. Full stop.
[W]e'll elect somebody -- into a situation in which the traditional restraints on executive power have failed systematically.
Here will be a test of character, an opportunity to develop/improve a reputation for honorability, and a measure of whether the man will keep the implied promise he made when he stood for office and the explicit promise he makes when he swears his oath of office.
Eric Hines
Eric, I will agree with you, insofar as if we stipulate that a signing statement is no more or less than a President making a side note of "I don't like this, but I'm signing it anyway". In effect, nothing more important than someone whining that they didn't get their way. The problem is, Presidents treat signing statements as if they're actual binding vetos. "I'm signing this, but I don't believe I have any obligation to actually obey it." And up to a point, sure, you can SAY that if you like, Mr. President, but the instant you treat it as anything other than law (or challenge its Constitutionality in court) then you are violating your oath of office and should likely be impeached.
Mike, we're not too far apart from each other.
Eric Hines
We rarely are, sir.
Post a Comment