Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Heck, it doesn't even have to be the POTUS, it can be the Governor or Mayor. There's lots of laws that aren't equally enforced.
|
It goes to more that just being equally enforced to the point of nullifying the intent of laws.
Many presidents have used signing statements.
In Bush's case, he often used them to disobey the law, or at least disobey the intent of Congress. The worst case was probably the Detainee Treatment Act that limited interrogation techniques of prisoners to those allowed in the Army Field Manual.
He claimed in his signing statement that he had the right as President and Commander in Chief to ignore this provision in order to protect the country from terrorists.
---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------
Quote:
Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements led to fierce controversy. He frequently used them to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, and that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a ban on torture and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counterterrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us...10signing.html
|
The Detainee Treatment Act said you cant use interrogation techniques other than those in the AFM; when signing the bill, the signing statement that Bush added said, "screw you, i can use enhanced interrogation techniques if I think it it will protect the American people."
The PATRIOT Act required that he regularly inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers; On signing the bill, Bush added a signing statement that said "no I dont," not when I can claim my national security powers trump your need for reports or Congressional oversight of the FBI.
Claiming "unconstitutional restraints on executive power" to, in effect, nullify key provisions of laws enacted by Congress based on his own (not the Judiciary's) interpretation is a stretch of executive power, IMO.