Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
....They also need to make one that prohibits signing statements. I'm sorry but the president doesn't get to interpret the law, that is for judges.
|
Rekna...the signing statements have not gone unnoticed. The House Judiciary Committee made it one of its first orders of business at an
oversight hearing earlier this year
....and John Conyers, the Chairman, intends to
kick ass until he gets answers:
Today we are taking up the very important item of Presidential signing statements, which supposedly give him the power to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed into law.
All too often, the Administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy. This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate. And so, we announce that out of this oversight hearing we will today begin an investigation of the specific use and abuse of presidential signing statements.
In particular, I intend to ask the Administration to identify each and every statutory provision they have not agreed with in signing statements, and to specify precisely what they have done as a result. For example, if the President claims he is exempt from the McCain Amendment ban on torture, I want to know whether and where he has permitted it. And we want to know what has he done to carry out his claims to be exempt from many other laws, such as oversight and reporting requirements under the PATRIOT Act, numerous affirmative action obligations, and the requirement that government obtain a search warrant before opening the mail of American citizens.
I am also going to ask my staff, along with Ranking Member Smith’s staff, to meet with the Department of Justice and the White House so we can get to the bottom of this matter, and to be blunt, we are not going to take no for an answer. We are a co-equal branch of government, and if our system of checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative that we understand how the Executive Branch is enforcing – or ignoring – the bills that are signed into law.
The
statement/testimony by former
Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards at the hearing is also pretty damning of the Bush practice:
"The question is whether or not the President of the United States is above the law. Because the moment he signs the legislation that is presented to him, it is not merely a proposal; it is the law, and it is binding upon every citizen, whether a taxi driver, a street sweeper, or the President of the United States...
This should be an interesting issue to follow as it works through the oversight process.
As Elph said...have patience...correcting so much wrong-doing over the last six years is not easy
