Strong executive or Rule of Law?

[BT]

I have never suspended you. I don't even think i have urged you to take a break.

I have a log of posters who have been suspended that tracks their ip's and you aren't on it. And that log goes back 5 years.

[domer]

It's erroneous.

[BT]

It's erroneous.

or you are.

[domer]

No, I know my own experience while you are grandly asserting knowledge of all others' and the infallibility of what well may be a hit or miss recording system.

[Plane]

The Constitution forbids a few things establishes a few things , there is a difference between being unconstitutional and being extraconstitutiuonal , as far as I know signing statements are not forbidden explicitly .


The means of making law is explicit tho , and if there were some manner of making law that was contrived to avoid this process but produce law or to ignore law that has been duly enacted by the explicitly constitutional process this manner of lawmaking would seem to be Un - constitutional.

Who tho has standing to make this complaint?

Has there actually been a case of the President's signing statement being used in lieu of law ?

How does this relate to the Roe vs Wade decision ,which to opponents seems to be law created outside the constitutional process by a single governmental branch not entrusted with that power?

How does this relate to regulations created in bureaucracies as if they were deputys of the Congress and sometimes produce regulations with all the strength of law?

[Plane]

No, I know my own experience while you are grandly asserting knowledge of all others' and the infallibility of what well may be a hit or miss recording system.

Hehehehehehehehe


I consider Domer to be an extremely valuable contributor , I am pleased to play in the same league as he condescends  to explain subjects of his expertise.


I consider the contribution of BT essential to the existence of this site , which exists more from BT's generosity with his time than from any other reason.

I consider the thread trailing off into minor and poorly considered ad hominim sniping an example of below par performance on both of their parts.



Hehehehehehehehehehehehehe

[_JS]

How does this relate to the Roe vs Wade decision ,which to opponents seems to be law created outside the constitutional process by a single governmental branch not entrusted with that power?

That is incorrect. Let me say that I am very much against abortion, but there is a great deal that goes into court decisions of this type, in the case of Roe v. Wade it was a matter of the 14th amendment and a reliance upon another decision involving a 1965 Supreme Court case called Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case the state of Connecticut had laws preventing the use of contraceptives which the SCOTUS ruled as unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a violation of marital privacy via the fourteenth amendment and the ninth amendment which provided "penumbras" of other constitutional protection.

Eisenstadt v. Baird used equal protection to broaden the fredom granted in Griswold to unmarried couples. This helped to build a chain of precedence for Roe v Wade. Therefore it is incorrect to assert that the judicial branch created law - they did not.

as far as I know signing statements are not forbidden explicitly

No, nor are they expressly called for by any law, court ruling, or otherwise. They have absolutely no legal force or merit. The Supreme Court has never given any weight to signing statements when they've read legislation before though there is some precedence in the striking of the line-item veto law under President Clinton.

Bush has used them more than any other President in history and generally they are used to tell others that he will not enforce a particular segment of law, or as something similar to an executive order without the legal ramifications.

How does this relate to regulations created in bureaucracies as if they were deputys of the Congress and sometimes produce regulations with all the strength of law?

It does not.

Executive agencies may promulgate such regulations only within the scope given to them by their enacting (or enabling) legislation which was passed into law by Congress. Whether or not you like that is irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that Congress realised long ago that it does not have the time, nor the expertise to handle every possible situation that arises in every agency. So agencies such as the EPA, USDA, Forest Service, on and on are given the ability to promulgate their own regulations.

There is in fact an entire area of law dealing with just this: Administrative Law. It can get very interesting, especially when multiple states come together to create an agency or group to deal with an issue. For example, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey created a board to deal with environmental issues on the Delaware River (sometime back in the 80's) and there were a number of authority and delegation of powers issues that arose from this. I remember because we had a few case studies from that one.

[BT]

Bush has used them more than any other President in history and generally they are used to tell others that he will not enforce a particular segment of law, or as something similar to an executive order without the legal ramifications.

and that has nothing to do with their constitutionality. Which was the issue at hand.

[sirs]

Bush has used them more than any other President in history and generally they are used to tell others that he will not enforce a particular segment of law, or as something similar to an executive order without the legal ramifications.

and that has nothing to do with their constitutionality. Which was the issue at hand.

But......but......Bush is evil Bt.  That's the real issue, isn't it?

[Plane]

How does this relate to regulations created in bureaucracies as if they were deputys of the Congress and sometimes produce regulations with all the strength of law?

It does not.

Executive agencies may promulgate such regulations only within the scope given to them by their enacting (or enabling) legislation which was passed into law by Congress. Whether or not you like that is irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that Congress realised long ago that it does not have the time, nor the expertise to handle every possible situation that arises in every agency. So agencies such as the EPA, USDA, Forest Service, on and on are given the ability to promulgate their own regulations.

There is in fact an entire area of law dealing with just this: Administrative Law. It can get very interesting, especially when multiple states come together to create an agency or group to deal with an issue. For example, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey created a board to deal with environmental issues on the Delaware River (sometime back in the 80's) and there were a number of authority and delegation of powers issues that arose from this. I remember because we had a few case studies from that one.

Then there is a tool of lawmakeing much more powerfull than the "signing statement " availible to the executive that no one is complaining about.

I think we are agreed that there is no chance of someone useing a signing statement as if it were law.

I will call this a meaningless noise untill there is actually a case in which the signing statement makes a diffrence.

[Lanya]

Plane: 
<<I will call this a meaningless noise untill there is actually a case in which the signing statement makes a diffrence.>>

And I repeat, How do you know it hasn't already been used to thwart the law?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/greenfield.signing/

[............]
'Here's the question: Can a president say when he signs a bill the Congress passed, "I'll interpret the law as I see it"?

That's what Bush did when he signed Sen. John McCain's anti-torture legislation in December, asserting that ''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president . . . as commander in chief.

That's a polite way of saying, "If I don't like the law the Congress passed, I'll ignore it." [................]

[Plane]

"'Here's the question: Can a president say when he signs a bill the Congress passed, "I'll interpret the law as I see it"?"


How could a president say anything elese?


Laws should be written to be clear and leave little doubt or wiggle room or even much room for "interpretation".

Unfortunately the law is too often quite open to interpretation.




"And I repeat, How do you know it hasn't already been used to thwart the law?"


I hereby assert that to the best of my knoledge it has not , if you ae takeing the role of accuser it is your job to fill the present void of evidence .

As stated ,it is an empty accuation .

Also what diffrence would the signing statement ever make to a president unwilling to enforce the law?

I recall President Clinton eagerly signing the law that he was at that time in violation of and was later sued with, if he had stated that he personally planned to ignore it, that would have been more than usually honest . But with no signing statement at all he simply ignored it , till it bit him.




What diffrence would a signing statement have made ?



I have seen no evidence that any presidents signing statement has ever made more diffrence than a press release , have you?

In the absense of any evidence are we free to speculate freely?

[sirs]

"And I repeat, How do you know it hasn't already been used to thwart the law?"

I hereby assert that to the best of my knoledge it has not , if you ae takeing the role of accuser it is your job to fill the present void of evidence .  As stated ,it is an empty accuation .

But....but....it's Bush, Plane,  That's all the evidence necessary for Lanya, and like minds.  He's evil.  Didn't ya get the memo?

In the absense of any evidence are we free to speculate freely?

That's pretty much all that is being accomplished   

[_JS]

and that has nothing to do with their constitutionality. Which was the issue at hand.

True. Thus far the SCOTUS has simply ignored them, which makes me think that they are viewed by the Judiciary as irrelevant. On the other hand, the ABA is looking at the situation with concern, which makes me curious.

Then there is a tool of lawmakeing much more powerfull than the "signing statement " availible to the executive that no one is complaining about.

Because it is power freely given by the legislative branch (at State and Federal levels) and it completely legal and constitutional. How else do you figure on running the complexities of a modern state?

But....but....it's Bush, Plane,  That's all the evidence necessary for Lanya, and like minds.  He's evil.  Didn't ya get the memo?

But...but...but, you cannot use that for everything Sirs. There are some legitimate concerns that cannot always be covered with the "chalk it up to Bush is evil" mantra.

[Plane]

How does this relate to the Roe vs Wade decision ,which to opponents seems to be law created outside the constitutional process by a single governmental branch not entrusted with that power?

That is incorrect. Let me say that I am very much against abortion, but there is a great deal that goes into court decisions of this type, in the case of Roe v. Wade it was a matter of the 14th amendment and a reliance upon another decision involving a 1965 Supreme Court case called Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case the state of Connecticut had laws preventing the use of contraceptives which the SCOTUS ruled as unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a violation of marital privacy via the fourteenth amendment and the ninth amendment which provided "penumbras" of other constitutional protection.

Eisenstadt v. Baird used equal protection to broaden the fredom granted in Griswold to unmarried couples. This helped to build a chain of precedence for Roe v Wade. Therefore it is incorrect to assert that the judicial branch created law - they did not.

as far as I know signing statements are not forbidden explicitly

No, nor are they expressly called for by any law, court ruling, or otherwise. They have absolutely no legal force or merit. The Supreme Court has never given any weight to signing statements when they've read legislation before though there is some precedence in the striking of the line-item veto law under President Clinton.

Bush has used them more than any other President in history and generally they are used to tell others that he will not enforce a particular segment of law, or as something similar to an executive order without the legal ramifications.

How does this relate to regulations created in bureaucracies as if they were deputys of the Congress and sometimes produce regulations with all the strength of law?

It does not.

Executive agencies may promulgate such regulations only within the scope given to them by their enacting (or enabling) legislation which was passed into law by Congress. Whether or not you like that is irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that Congress realised long ago that it does not have the time, nor the expertise to handle every possible situation that arises in every agency. So agencies such as the EPA, USDA, Forest Service, on and on are given the ability to promulgate their own regulations.

There is in fact an entire area of law dealing with just this: Administrative Law. It can get very interesting, especially when multiple states come together to create an agency or group to deal with an issue. For example, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey created a board to deal with environmental issues on the Delaware River (sometime back in the 80's) and there were a number of authority and delegation of powers issues that arose from this. I remember because we had a few case studies from that one.

When the concept of "penumbras " began to be taken seriously , the constitution was under new authorship.