The ABA panel charged with looking into BushCo's signing statement frenzy is releasing a report today critical of the administration's unusual practice. According to the New York Times, the report accuses Bush of "flouting the Constitution" by claiming the power to ignore the laws he signs if he wants.
The panel is bi-partisan and made up of some very heavy Dem and Rep hitters, including former FBI head William Sessions, a former Court of Appeals Judge, a founder of the Heritage Foundation, constitutional experts, among others.
It was during the Reagan administration that they began to be used as a strategic weapon. Guess who came up with the idea? Then Reagan lawyer Sammy Alito.
Think they're not important? Well, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court might eventually disagree.
Departing from hundreds of years of jurisprudence, Justice Scalia recently gave great weight to signing statements in interpreting the intent and meaning of a law. Since the President is not involved in the creation of the law, only in signing or vetoing it, no one has ever looked to the President's opinion as a factor in deciding what Congress meant when IT drafted and enacted the law. Until Scalia. It won't be long now until the Court endorses Scalia's perversion of jurisprudence.
Activist judges, indeed. ITMFA
The panel is bi-partisan and made up of some very heavy Dem and Rep hitters, including former FBI head William Sessions, a former Court of Appeals Judge, a founder of the Heritage Foundation, constitutional experts, among others.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."The signing statements are the Presidential equivalent of crossing your fingers when you tell a lie. Now, you'll hear administration apologists tell you that signing statements have been "around since Jefferson". True, but for the most part they were of the press release variety -- lookit-the-good-law-just-signed,-mom, kind of thing.
It was during the Reagan administration that they began to be used as a strategic weapon. Guess who came up with the idea? Then Reagan lawyer Sammy Alito.
Think they're not important? Well, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court might eventually disagree.
Departing from hundreds of years of jurisprudence, Justice Scalia recently gave great weight to signing statements in interpreting the intent and meaning of a law. Since the President is not involved in the creation of the law, only in signing or vetoing it, no one has ever looked to the President's opinion as a factor in deciding what Congress meant when IT drafted and enacted the law. Until Scalia. It won't be long now until the Court endorses Scalia's perversion of jurisprudence.
Activist judges, indeed. ITMFA
No comments:
Post a Comment