The Disinterested Anarchical topic for today is: Presidential signing statements
Given that this post will mostly be read by europeans who don't follow US politics to this degree of detail, it's probably best to explain a little about what exactly is a "signing statement". When the President signs a bill, he will often issue a separate statement, which does not carry the force of law. this signing statement can be very simple in saying that the bill is great for various reasons, or it can state how the executive branch interprets the law. we here are concerned with the latter.
The current american controversy over signing statements regards the practice of issuing them in order to circumvent certain portions of law that the president or his legal team deem unconstitutional. this is of course the most anally absurd concept in american government.
allow me to explain why interpretive signing statements are so...distasteful.
1) the very concept of it implies a presidential power to review laws and strike or uphold them. this power of course is the perogative of the supreme and inferior federal appellate courts as established in Marbury vs. Madison, so in issuing a signing statement purporting to interpret the constitution, the president violates the constitutionally established balance of power between the three branches of government
2) The particular signing statements issued by President Bush are halfassed loads of shit also because they purport to put the president above laws passed by congress. the power of congress to override presidential privilege was firmly established in United States vs. Nixon which established the power of congressional subpoenas (which hold the force of law) to override presidential objections. secondly, the power of congress to regulate even millitary affairs is firmly established over the years in the power of congress to control military appropriations and to oversee military affairs through the armed forces committees. thus, not even in the presidential domain of "commander in chief" is the president immune to congressional oversight.
Given that this post will mostly be read by europeans who don't follow US politics to this degree of detail, it's probably best to explain a little about what exactly is a "signing statement". When the President signs a bill, he will often issue a separate statement, which does not carry the force of law. this signing statement can be very simple in saying that the bill is great for various reasons, or it can state how the executive branch interprets the law. we here are concerned with the latter.
The current american controversy over signing statements regards the practice of issuing them in order to circumvent certain portions of law that the president or his legal team deem unconstitutional. this is of course the most anally absurd concept in american government.
allow me to explain why interpretive signing statements are so...distasteful.
1) the very concept of it implies a presidential power to review laws and strike or uphold them. this power of course is the perogative of the supreme and inferior federal appellate courts as established in Marbury vs. Madison, so in issuing a signing statement purporting to interpret the constitution, the president violates the constitutionally established balance of power between the three branches of government
2) The particular signing statements issued by President Bush are halfassed loads of shit also because they purport to put the president above laws passed by congress. the power of congress to override presidential privilege was firmly established in United States vs. Nixon which established the power of congressional subpoenas (which hold the force of law) to override presidential objections. secondly, the power of congress to regulate even millitary affairs is firmly established over the years in the power of congress to control military appropriations and to oversee military affairs through the armed forces committees. thus, not even in the presidential domain of "commander in chief" is the president immune to congressional oversight.
posted by Gabe Schonfeld at 9:16 PM
17 comments
