Say Anything Blog

I think it is signing statements we complain about, not executive orders.  Cite some sources complaining about executive orders, I have honestly never heard it.

Didn’t Carrick cite a source complaining about executive orders in the actual post?

Did you even read the post, Hawk?

As for signing statements, I’m a bit mixed on that.  On one hand, I think signing statements are primarily a symptom of Congress’ vague legislating.  It seems as though Congress rarely tackles an issue directly and forthrightly, so often the President is forced to interpret the law as he feels it applies to a situation.

And he does have a certain amount of latitude to do this, meaning that he can get away with it up until the point when someone takes it to court and gets an “official ruling” so to say.  This is particularly useful when Congress writes a law that unduly fringes upon his Constitutional duties.

On the flip side, I don’t really like the idea of the President signing laws that he partially disagrees with.  That’s not a good practice to have, especially when he explicitly states that he finds parts of the law unconstitutional.

He shouldn’t be signing any laws he feels is in any way unconstitutional.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Didn’t Carrick cite a source complaining about executive orders in the actual post?

Did you even read the post, Hawk?

Did you actually read the link.  Because it wasn’t about liberals complaining about Bush’s use of executive orders, as Carrick implies.

It seems to me that a signing statement cannot overrule the law, but it can clarify it.

When courts interpret the law we’re told they’ll look to the debate in Congress to determine the intent of the Congress.  This is how the President may put his intent down for the record.

It also would be completely in his purview to list how he expects the executive department to carry out the law.

Speaking of that, if a President issues an executive order concerning operations of the government that’s perfectly fine.  If he creates a new law I’m expected to abide by with an executive order that’s not.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Hawk, this is as far as I’m willing to go.

Beyond that… try using google.  It’s a nice tool.

Regarding signing statements, I think the Wiki entry does a reasonable job on this.

Here’s an example of an ominous signing statement:

Today, I have signed into law S. 56, the “Rio Grande Natural Area Act.” The Act establishes the Rio Grande Natural Area in Colorado to help protect natural resources on Federal and non-Federal lands.

The Act establishes a commission to perform specified functions relating to the Natural Area. The Commission consists of nine individuals appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, of whom one must represent the Colorado State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, one must be a specified Federal employee, three must be appointed on the recommendation of the Governor of Colorado to represent various Colorado governmental entities, and four must be knowledgeable, experienced local citizens to represent the general public. Thus, the Act limits the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the Secretary may select appointees to the Commission in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the positions, which the Appointments Clause of the Constitution does not permit if the appointees exercise significant governmental authority. To faithfully execute the Act to the maximum extent consistent with the Appointments Clause, the executive branch shall construe the provisions of the Act specifying functions for the Commission as specifying functions that are advisory only.

I can just feel my liberty crumble!

Not.

The only difference between Bush and Clinton is Bush is more transparent about how he interprets congressional statutes.  Clinton just ignored the parts he didn’t like.

Why would anybody advocate for less transparency?  Ans: Nobody.

The libs are just throwing mud ‘cause it’s fun.

Whistler, I agree with you.  In my opinion, if an executive order goes beyond a directive for interpreting congressional law, or administrative decree, to the point of making new law, then it would be unconstitutional.  Same probably as with Bush’s original directives on military tribunals.

Beyond that… try using google.  It’s a nice tool.

Hey, I did.  I was still unable to find any criticism of Bush using too many EOs.  Maybe the content of them, but not the number. 

So please provide a source for your strawman argument.

Carrick: Lefties lie; it’s all they have.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.