coherentbabble.com — A signing statement is a written proclamation issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements to modify the meaning of laws by President Bush. For your enlightenment, here is a complete list of his signing statements so far.
Oct 6, 2006 View in Crawl 4
dstzOct 7, 2006
Having elections now and then doesn't prevent a society to look a lot like a monarchy.
eggoOct 7, 2006
This one scares the hell out of me:"Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law. Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate."from here: <a class="user" href="http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/SSann2005.htm#2005-13">http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/SSann2005.htm#2005-13</a>Follow the link and read the one above this one too--it's longer than I want to paste into a digg thread, but just as bad.
david76Oct 7, 2006
And people wonder why some suggested a filibuster of Gonzales. He's really the one behind all of these signing statements and the expansion of "unitary executive theory". Cheney's probably involved too since he was scared by his Nixon era experience.
smithchrOct 7, 2006
The real problem, as I see it, is that Bush seems to be discarding the entire purpose of some of these laws. Interpreting the Congress' check on the Executive as "advisory" and stating that he won't seek approval though requiring such approval is codified in the very law he just signed is scary. It's as though he's marginalized the legislature saying "oh yeah? why don't you try to make me?." It's not the trashing of the constitution, but note his use of the language "unitary executive." That seems dangerous wording, to me. It smacks of a euphemism for monarchy.
infoproOct 8, 2006
You can replace the words "unitary executive" with two others & not change one iota of either the meaning or where they came from -- "Alberto Gonzales."
jtarheelOct 8, 2006
There was another article I read earlier that the sum total of signing statements of all previous presidents was about 600. I believe it start with FDR. Bush has signed about 800. That was the reason why he has only vetoed one bill.Also, the article stated that when a bill comes before him, it is sent to Cheney, who gives it to one of his lackeys. He goes through the bill to determine what they do not want to follow. The statement is then sent back to Bush for his signing.
infoproOct 9, 2006
Per bridgetown: "When you learn the english language, I'll think of You as an American. Until then, you are spewing gibberish. You are obviously ignorant of MUCH that goes on. Put your emotions back in check and try going to school."His delivery could stand tweaking, true, but the basic points themselves are quite valid. The shame of it is that people will blow them off because of the presentation.
crossersJul 19, 2008
I hate Bush! Bush just wants to make the government into his own little toy. Is there anyone who like Bush? <a class="user" href="http://www.shpe-sac.org">http://www.shpe-sac.org</a><a class="user" href="http://www.ocflex.com/">http://www.ocflex.com/</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.trgovinca.org">http://www.trgovinca.org</a><a class="user" href="http://www.chasr.org/">http://www.chasr.org/</a>