The Problems with Challenging Signing Statements
Yesterday, the American Bar Association released a report (PDF) denouncing President Bush's use of signing statements to circumvent the laws that he signs. Among the panel's recommendations were that Congress enact two pieces of legislation. The first would require the President to submit all signing statements to Congress, stating the reasons and legal basis whenever the statement declares the intent to not enforce all or part of the law. The second would allow for judicial review of the matter should Bush choose to declare this intent (something which Sen. Specter seems to be taking to heart).
I see few problems here. First, if either of these bills come up for a vote prior to the mid-terms, it is hard to predict the outcome. On the one had we have a Congress that has been overly deferential to this executive. But on the other is the fact that every time Bush issues a signing statement, he is flouting the will of Congress (an act which no doubt sticks in the craw of many a legislator). So as I said, it is hard to say which will prevail: partisanship or ego.
The second problem I see regards legal standing. As I noted over at Blognonymous last month, challenging these signing statements through the judiciary would be difficult given the task of finding someone with enough of a legal standing to say they have been adversely affected by these statements. Certainly this would be difficult in the case of an individual plantiff, say an average citizen. Though it may be easier for Congress since these statements do affect how the laws are enforced and thus impact the Congress' role as writers of those laws.
But even if those obstacles are overcome, there still remains one more: the signing statements themselves. The Congress could place all kinds of requirements in a bill and Bush can simply override them using (drumroll place) a signing statement! He did it back in 2002 when Congress objected to his overuse of these statements, so it stands to reason he might try it again here. He really has found one hell of a loophole.
I know I am probably oversimplifying this but my layman's brain is trying to make sense of this whole convoluted mess.
I see few problems here. First, if either of these bills come up for a vote prior to the mid-terms, it is hard to predict the outcome. On the one had we have a Congress that has been overly deferential to this executive. But on the other is the fact that every time Bush issues a signing statement, he is flouting the will of Congress (an act which no doubt sticks in the craw of many a legislator). So as I said, it is hard to say which will prevail: partisanship or ego.
The second problem I see regards legal standing. As I noted over at Blognonymous last month, challenging these signing statements through the judiciary would be difficult given the task of finding someone with enough of a legal standing to say they have been adversely affected by these statements. Certainly this would be difficult in the case of an individual plantiff, say an average citizen. Though it may be easier for Congress since these statements do affect how the laws are enforced and thus impact the Congress' role as writers of those laws.
But even if those obstacles are overcome, there still remains one more: the signing statements themselves. The Congress could place all kinds of requirements in a bill and Bush can simply override them using (drumroll place) a signing statement! He did it back in 2002 when Congress objected to his overuse of these statements, so it stands to reason he might try it again here. He really has found one hell of a loophole.
I know I am probably oversimplifying this but my layman's brain is trying to make sense of this whole convoluted mess.
Post a Comment