No. More. Signing statements.

A couple of thoughts on bipartisanship.

First, bipartisanship does not and must not mean compromise in the sense of splitting the difference.  On a core set of issues - minimum wage being the most obvious but not the only example - bipartisanship means inviting the administration to participate in a process whose essential outcome is acknowledged in advance.  On some issues like immigration it means finding common ground.  And, on some budgetary issues it may well mean splitting the difference.  With that understood, I'm all for any kind of bipartisanship that respects the clarity of Tuesday's verdict.

But, before we can even talk about bipartisanship, Pelosi and Reid must confront Bush on the issue of signing statements.  Now, we can't realistically expect Bush to do a 180 on the subject.  There is no way he will acknowledge having acted badly in the past or somehow concede generally his authority to override elements of legislation through signing statements.  But, Pelosi and Reid must make it clear that there can be no discussions on any proposed legislation unless and until Bush makes a commitment that he will sign or veto that particular piece of legislation without a signing statement.  Bush being Bush, the prohibition on signing statements attached to any negotiated legislation must be agreed to publicly and it must be absolute.  No matter how immaterial, no matter how supposedly benign, Bush must publicly agree that once the negotiations begin on any legislation, he has waived his prerogative (to whatever extent he legitimately has one) to attach any sort of signing statement whatsoever.

Absent this sort of rigid, publicly acknowledged agreement, any talk of bipartisanship is a farce.  Just, as so many negotiations over the past several years were proved to be a farce when Congress passed laws only to have Bush add "not" before signing.

Some might argue that if Democrats felt so strongly about signing statements, they should have made it campaign issue.  Well, maybe they should have made it a campaign issue and maybe not.  But, this isn't the sort of issue that must pass through the crucible of a campaign debate to legitimize action.  In fact, the very threat of signing statements utterly disrespects the democratic act which took place on Tuesday.  The American electorate, exercising its right to choose those people in whom to vest legislative authority, spoke loudly and clearly on Tuesday.  Bush cannot on the one hand claim to respect the verdict rendered and on the other hand insist on neutering the authority of the legislature.

No.  More.  Signing Statements.

•  i completely agree

  The D's should insert language in every bill passed that renders it void if Bush attaches a signing statement.

  by demmefatale on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:37:12 PM PDT

  •  Marbury v Madison n/t

    by Dion on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:44:27 PM PDT

  •  No, that allows an easy veto

    He'd add a benign signing statement, and then it'd be effectivly vetoed but some of the blame may fall on congress.

    What should be done is adding a 'poison pill' that a signing statement triggers: For example, on the Minimum wage bill, have the minimum jump by 25% if there is a signing statement attached.

    Of course, the signing statement will just negate that too...

    by LEit on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:33:39 PM PDT

•  The Unitary Executive

  The signing statement blatantly undermines the process of making law defined in the constitution.  It is one of the biggest manifestations of the extra-constitutional power grabs by this administration in the name of the Unitary Executive.  I have a hard time distinguishing between the Unitary Executive doctrine and the Fuhrerprinzip.

  by ActivistGuy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:40:50 PM PDT

•  You thought 700 in 6 years was a lot? Just wait

  by Spud1 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:42:48 PM PDT

  •  probably about the same percentage

    if not less.  He's got the veto pen to use too.

    by dougymi on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:01:52 PM PDT

•  Sometimes signing statements

  are simply instructions by the President on how the executive branch should carry out implementation of the new law.  Unfortunately this administration has used them in an attempt to negate portions of those laws, in effect, a kind of line item veto.  In addition, and perhaps most importantly, Bush hopes that his signing statements will be used by courts in the actual interpretation of the law.

  So instead of trying to negotiate with Bush about whether he will issue a signing statement or not, how about just ending the types of signing statements that Bush has been using.  

  In my opinion, Congress should pass a law stating that passed bills reflect the entire intent of the law and courts may not use presidential signing statements when interpreting that intent.  It should reinforce that the Constitition provides the President two options only, sign or veto.  Period.

   

  by bluerevolt on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:45:15 PM PDT

  •  I'd actually likely advocate...

    Congress should pass a law stating that passed bills reflect the entire intent of the law and courts may not use presidential signing statements when interpreting that intent.

    ...a Constitutional Amendment dictating such, should the courts at any time in the coming years take a signing statement into account when considering a decision. Indeed, should a dispute come before thte court that references any bill onto which a signing statement was attached, the statement should not even be available to the court as part of the bill. If the Executive Branch wishes to comment on the law before the court, they can file an amicus (sp?) brief just like everyone else.

    by turnover on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:51:01 PM PDT

    •  No. Don't give them that much credit.

      Signing statements have no legal basis.  The appropriate response is to use them to toast marshmallows.  On the steps of the Capitol.  They can start with a bonfire from the 700 or so statements in the past.  Bush wants to make a written statement clearly saying that he will not follow the law?  That's what he should be impeached for.

      by tle on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:18:48 PM PDT

      •  When the signing statement issue

        I think I read that Congress couldn't do anything about them. Is that true in general? Was that only true because Congress was in Bush's pocket? What actually is the legal situation now, absent any changes in law or amendments to the Constitution?

        by count on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:44:25 PM PDT

•  The President has no business "negotiating"

  legislation. He has two choices - sign or veto. His job is to enforce the law, not make it.

  by 35fan on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:50:30 PM PDT

  •  Exactly! 35fan is right on.

    by Dar Nirron on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:04:07 PM PDT

    •  actually, I can't take credit

      I read it on The Tubes yesterday. But, that's how the Constitution works.

      by 35fan on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:40:49 PM PDT

  •  Actually, he can "Request" legislation, too. n/t

    by polecat on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:28:13 PM PDT

•  Stop Siging statements -- but how?

  I agree entirely that the Signing Statements are wrong -- anti-Constitutional, in my opinion.  But I don't know a good way to stop them yet.

  The kind of public pledge that you suggest might turn into a kind of political theatre that Bush would ignore. A public pledge could, however, be used to force his hand -- when he breaks his promise, call him on it, and turn the event into a reason to investigate and stop the practice.

  I was glad to see (in an AP article that I found at the Guardian/UK) that Signing Statements are on the Dems' agenda.  Does anyone know yet who the Congresspeople are who are planning to attack this problem?

  Guardian article 'Democratic Priorities in Congress' (AP)

  by CroneWit on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:54:55 PM PDT

  •  Signing Statements

    You can't really stop signing statements what with freedom of speech and all.  However, if the President elects to sign the legislation, that legislation becomes law.  And the President is duty-bound and oath-bound to follow the law.  

    What does the House do with a President that intentionally violates the law?

    by Catch A Fire on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:59:48 PM PDT

    •  well, with some caveats

      The executive is only required to follow the law if it's constitutional, which makes for some tricky gray area.  A law isn't only unconstitutional after the Supreme Court has said so---if there's been no ruling, it could be either one, and the executive has some leeway in whether to treat it as presumptively constitutional or presumptively unconstitutional, based on a supposedly reasoned judgment.

      For example, Clinton signed a bill around '96 sometime that included a provision to prohibit dissemination of abortion-related information on the internet.  He attached a signing statement indicating that he thought that portion was unconstitutional, and so was instructing his Justice Department not to enforce it.  That seems like a legitimate use of signing statements to me.  In some ways it's kind of line-item vetoing a portion of the bill, but only a portion that isn't really law in the fundamental sense, since unconstitutional acts of Congress aren't properly law.

      A better solution, though, might have been to veto the legislation entirely.  Signing something that is kind of unconstitutional and then not enforcing the unconstitutional bits is kind of screwy.

      by Delirium on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:12:54 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    Yes, Bush might go back on his word.  History suggests he would.  And, yes, at that poing the stakes should be raised.

    by jay l on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:00:50 PM PDT

•  One Solution.

  It seems like an easy solution would be to attach a paragraph to every bill not voiding the bill in the event of a signing statement but granting standing to a large class of people to bring an action in Federal Court to determine the correct interpretation of the statute, and granting attorneys fees to a successful litigant.  So, any time Bush adds a signing statement any member of Congress, or a public interest group, can file a lawsuit and have a judge decide if the President's interpretation of the law is correct or not.

  by Tod on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:07:08 PM PDT

  •  Nice

    I think you've got the right approach here.  I hope some savvy Hill staffer reads your comment.

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:21:48 PM PDT

•  Recommended nt

  -fink

  by fink on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:14:38 PM PDT

•  Poison pill in every law that is passed

  preventing "Signing Statements" or else criminal charges to not enforce, yada yada, or else funding goes away.

  Something like that.  Raise the stakes.  It can be done WITHOUT Bipartisanship, too.  Especially attached to a crucial budget bill.  Tricks from Tip O'Neill for handling President Raygun.

  by polecat on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:27:17 PM PDT

  •  Criminal charges

    goes too far.

    by Warren Terrer on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:10:46 PM PDT

    •  Does it really?

      Does failure to follow your Oath of Office constitute a criminal act?

      I think so!

      by polecat on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:56:34 AM PDT

      •  We're talking about

        signing statments, not 'failing to follow the oath of office'. First of all, 'failing to follow the oath of office' is impeachable. Secondly, a president is open to criminal charges if he commited crimes.

        As for the issue of signing statements, it should never be a crime merely to issue a signing statement. Punish him for the acts he commits in furtherance of an improper signing statement, not for the statement itself. While we are at it why not make it a crime for the president to sign a bill into law that the SCOTUS strikes down as unconstitutional? Hasn't he failed to follow his oath of office for signing such a bill?

        Until Bush, signing statements have been used by presidents without any problems. Are you suggesting all those signing statements should be viewed as criminal acts? The idea is preposterous. Criminalizing an act that only a president could commit and no one else is absurd.

        In short, it's a constitutional matter, not a criminal one. The courts exist as a check on signing statements, without any need for criminalizing them. Congress can pass legislation to override them. And impeachment can be used to remove a president who abuses them. And criminal laws exist already that the President must abide by just like everyone else.

        by Warren Terrer on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:49:14 AM PDT

        •  Impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says

          they are.

          For good or for ill.

          by polecat on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:49:56 AM PDT