Strong executive or Rule of Law?

[sirs]

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.

When someone can demonstrate that what Bush has done is ruled unconstitional by a court, then we can address your concerns about Bush using them more often than some other President, as if that's bad.  So far, every thing i've read are that these signing statements are perfectly constitutional.  They were under Clinton, so why they suddenly aren't under Bush based simply that he's used more of them, could be assessed as moutain out of molehill fodder by folks who aren't too pleased with Bush, especially those have concluded that everything Bush does is bad/wrong/evil

[_JS]

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

Not according to Federal Courts and the Supreme Court.

Do you believe a state has the right to outlaw birth control?

When someone can demonstrate that what Bush has done is ruled unconstitional by a court, then we can address your concerns...

I merely stated a fact Sirs, if you read my entire post you'd see that I did not make a great big deal of it. If you have an issue with a fact, then I cannot help you. A fact is a fact. You cannot change them to suit you.

Toddle off now.

[Amianthus]

From a memo issued by Clinton's Justice Dept:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements

[sirs]

When someone can demonstrate that what Bush has done is ruled unconstitional by a court, then we can address your concerns...

I merely stated a fact Sirs, if you read my entire post you'd see that I did not make a great big deal of it. If you have an issue with a fact, then I cannot help you. A fact is a fact. You cannot change them to suit you.

I have an "issue" with folks that imply (if not directly accusing) that anything and everything this President does must be bad, wrong, stupid, and/or unconsitutional.  I have no issue with you pointing out if Bush has more signing statements than anyone else.  I can tell you that means nothing to me, as my focus both job wise, and in trying to live my life is quality trumps quantity.  If they're perfectly constitutional I don't care how many signing statements Bush uses.  Until 1 is deemed unconsitutional by a court, this is pretty much a non-issue..........except of course to those who have concluded that Bush is evil, and thus whatever he does must also be illegal, unethical, and/or unconsitutional

Toddle off now.

Interesting

[Plane]

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

Not according to Federal Courts and the Supreme Court.

Do you believe a state has the right to outlaw birth control?

That is exactly the point.The federal courts should not have the right to enact law.

Umbras and penumbras mean shadows , and if what is seen in the shadows allows a court to have any law it wants then the legislature is superflouous.

And the legislature is the voice of the people.


In some states the people are extremely frustrated at being treated as if their judgement were in some way inferior to that of the Supreme court.

[_JS]

You didn't answer my second question Plane.

I understand the frustration. I think that abortion is a problem that won't simply go away by attacking the credibility of Roe v Wade which doesn't completely rest on the notion of "penumbra" though it references a case that does to a greater extent: Griswold v Connecticut.

Should states have the power to regulate or completely prohibit birth control?

[sirs]

Should states have the power to regulate or completely prohibit birth control?

Yes (as it relates to the abortion issue).  People elect their legislators, legislators then impliment bills or propositions, that are either signed into law, or put to the people for their vote.  If the people don't like the laws passed, they can vote out those legislators and vote in those who have pledged to change the law

[_JS]

Yes

I agree, especially with abortofacient birth control. Yet, I doubt that many - even amongst the pro-life movement, would agree with overturning Griswold v Connecticut.

 

[Lanya]

Interesting article and facts about signing statements.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

[domer]

George W. Bush abused the tool of signing statements, in ways that could conceivably "be declared" unconstitutional, say, in a suit against a federal enforcement agency for "dereliction of duty" for not enforcing a clear legislative enactment in the way the legislature dictated but instead according to an interpretation engrafted onto the law by presidential fiat. In the real world of law and politics where most of us adults live, the concept of "unconstitutionality," further, is an intellectual category not limited to the actions or pronouncements of courts. Take, for example, the separation of powers and the authority to wield stated powers. There is an ebb and flow to this notion, maybe illustrated by the president's war powers and the Congressional enactments bearing on them. More frequently than not, an attempted usurpation by one branch is settled politically, not legally, yet the rights being redressed are constitutional ones. This set-up has gotten formal recognition by the Supreme Court in the concept of justiciability governing "political questions," as one example.

[Plane]

From a memo issued by Clinton's Justice Dept:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements

I don't agree with this , a president should be held to the law in the same way as a federal marshal , not get to pick his favorite ones , or the bits of a law he likes better.

Necessacery discression I can understand , but not a right to pick and choose the law.

When the president thinks that the powers of the president are being trespassed , he should call in the opinion of a court.

[Plane]

You didn't answer my second question Plane.

I understand the frustration. I think that abortion is a problem that won't simply go away by attacking the credibility of Roe v Wade which doesn't completely rest on the notion of "penumbra" though it references a case that does to a greater extent: Griswold v Connecticut.

Should states have the power to regulate or completely prohibit birth control?

Yes a state should have the power to make laws in every sort of case not explicitly claimed for the federal government by the constitution.

Allowing the court to encroach on the power of the legislatures robs the people of their voice in democracy.

"Penumbra" is a crutch for a policy of claiming powers for the court not explicitly granted by the constitution , would it be diffrent if the president were to claim the right to make law , or if the Congress were to claim the right to interpret the constitution?

Roe vs Wade does represent an attack on federalism and a power grab on the part of one governmental branch, it is a damage to the system of checks and balences.

[Plane]

George W. Bush abused the tool of signing statements, in ways that could conceivably "be declared" unconstitutional, say, in a suit against a federal enforcement agency for "dereliction of duty" for not enforcing a clear legislative enactment in the way the legislature dictated but instead according to an interpretation engrafted onto the law by presidential fiat. In the real world of law and politics where most of us adults live, the concept of "unconstitutionality," further, is an intellectual category not limited to the actions or pronouncements of courts. Take, for example, the separation of powers and the authority to wield stated powers. There is an ebb and flow to this notion, maybe illustrated by the president's war powers and the Congressional enactments bearing on them. More frequently than not, an attempted usurpation by one branch is settled politically, not legally, yet the rights being redressed are constitutional ones. This set-up has gotten formal recognition by the Supreme Court in the concept of justiciability governing "political questions," as one example.

"......... in a suit against a federal enforcement agency for "dereliction of duty" for not enforcing a clear legislative enactment in the way the legislature dictated but instead according to an interpretation engrafted onto the law by presidential fiat."


Yes , that would be bad.
Has it happened?

[domer]

Of Griswold, Roe, penumbras, emanations, implications, and original meaning.

In my considered professional view, a literalist or "original meanings" orientation to constitutional exegesis and interpretation is like playing with half a deck. The immediate objection stems from the tendency to freeze terms and conditions as of 1787. That is absurd. A far better way to handle this topic is to recognize the conditions prevailing at ratification and then to extract the principles inhering in the founders' treatment of those conditions, thus producing an abstract set of values and principles that lives beyond (transcends) the particular words and particular circumstances within the minds of those signing our foundational document and its amendments.

[Plane]

Of Griswold, Roe, penumbras, emanations, implications, and original meaning.

In my considered professional view, a literalist or "original meanings" orientation to constitutional exegesis and interpretation is like playing with half a deck. The immediate objection stems from the tendency to freeze terms and conditions as of 1787. That is absurd. A far better way to handle this topic is to recognize the conditions prevailing at ratification and then to extract the principles inhering in the founders' treatment of those conditions, thus producing an abstract set of values and principles that lives beyond (transcends) the particular words and particular circumstances within the minds of those signing our foundational document and its amendments.

Oh no that is terrible!

Allowing the Constitution to be abstracted would kill it as an effective tool of government , no matter how intelligent or educate our people in charge become I want there to be a real leash on them.

When changes are needed , they should be discussed untill the public undestands the need , then the process of applying admendments should be followed in detail.

This is not accidentally a cumbersome process , it needs to be a cumbersome process.  Reaching a nationwide understanding and cocensus takes the time.

With a flexable Constitution freely reinterpreted as situations warrant we would have the problems of the man with rubber bones.