Leolan:

How does this bullshit work? The president can't really make himself immune to Congress' decisions just by stating an intention to ignore them, legally. So how and why does Bush get away with it?

He does it and gets away with it because of two things. First, while the executive cannot ignore legislation, it can interpret that legislation in a way that Congress did not anticipate. Second, the legislature doesn't have any teeth if they are not united. Without these teeth, Bush can do pretty much whatever he wants.

That's the quick and dirty of it. I'll have time to respond further tomorrow.

Signing statements have been used for a long time. Bush is by no means the first president to do this. However, they used to be a rarity.

From Madison (that's president #5) to Carter, on average, a president would issue two of these throughout his term. When Carter left the White House, only 75 signing statements had ever been issued. Typically, they were unimportant. They weren't widely published and were usually political fluff, something to thank supporters of a bill or charge a party's base.

Then Reagan came along. His presidency alone practically doubled the number of provisions that were challenged by signing statements.

He issued about 9 signing statements each year during his 8 years.

George Bush issued about 58 each year during his 4 years.

Bill Clinton issued about 18 signing statements each year during his 8 years. Six of those years, he faced an unfriendly Congress.

George W. Bush issues one almost every other day, for a total over 1,100 so far, counting the number of provisions challenged. Six of those years, he had the support of a very friendly Congress.

Constitutionally, the president has questionable authority to constitutionally challenge a law without involving the judiciary. He is, however, bound to "faithfully execute" the law within the confines of the Constitution.

So a signing statement is issued, defining how the president interprets the law and providing instructions to executive offices how to follow the law. It may also contain an argument that the provision limits executive authority, and thus isn't applicable to the president, his office, and his instructions to other offices.

The question of constitutionality hasn't been answered directly. If you think of it as a line-item veto, that was invalidated by the Supreme Court because it bypassed Congress. Even as the second term of the Bush Presidency was in full swing, the court basically ignored a signing statement, giving it no weight in their deliberations (though Justice Alito pushed for signing statements when he worked for Reagan).

Maybe it's just me, but I think that if the president finds the language of a bill to be unconstitutional, he should veto it, not sign it and write himself a pass. They do swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, to the best of their ability, don't they? Even if you agree with signing statements, I imagine they'd still be only second best to having a law that's written correctly.

But at the end of the day, if you don't like the way these signing statements are used, you're talking about thwarting an action being taken by the President of the United States. That's no easy task, no matter how low his poll numbers.

I hate to quibble (who am I kidding? I love to quibble), but the original quote doesn't close the dashed-off phrase. It's disturbing to me. And before the anti-anti's attack me, I can believe in an ideal without practicing it.

As to signing statements? Sausage (see: making of).

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Not sure if that was my mistake or Tran's, but the dashes should've appeared after the word exploded.

That was all you. I'm very careful about my dashes nowadays; Myrtle scarred me. :b

Alright. I don't see the meaning changing either way, so not going to worry about it.

No! I insist you act immediately! It's crucial.

...and thank you for answering my question.

No problem.