Forum organizers describe the event this way:
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Is such an interpretation of presidential power necessary in an age of terrorism and imminent security threats? Or, as one critics suggests, will these new tools ‘lie around like a loaded weapon’ for any future president, liberal or conservative, to impose his or her own agenda on he country?
Maybe someone will live blog this one!
Please share widely!
…it’s a shame my schedule conflicts because I’d strongly consider attending.
… Anyone contact CSPAN?
… could someone print the website along with the URL to CSPAN’s programming suggestions fax line at 202 737 6226?
<
p>
Be sure to indicate that the event is in Boston (the website doesn’t actually indicate that).
They are opinion only. See if he BROKE any of these laws, THEN you have something to talk about.
<
p>
For instance, while I think the income tax is unconstitutional, if I mail a check to the IRS along with my assertion of its illegality every April 15, there really is nothing to talk about – unless you wish to fume for fuming’s sake. BTW – Bush ISN’T running again, you know…odd how backwards-looking so-called progressives have become.
For instance, while I think the income tax is unconstitutional…
<
p>
You might want to check out the 16th amendment to the federal Constitution. Apparently, the Constitution disagrees with you.
<
p>
On the general subject matter of the post (up above), two points.
<
p>
One, a “signing statement” will be effective until someone who has “standing” can successfully challenge the signing statement as a deviation from the intent of the legislation as passed by Congress. It doesn’t appear that very many people can claim standing regarding the signing statements.
<
p>
Two, I suspect that Congressional Democrats don’t want to “make waves” regarding the “signing statements,” because they will want a Dem president to have the option to have lots of signing statements, too.
<
p>
One further observation, a subsequent president is not bound by any signing statment by a former president. That’s why signing statements aren’t vetos.
… is to what degree signing statements are considered when judicial review is called on to contemplate original legislative intent. The signing statements shouldn’t be considered at all, but a hypothetical future Supreme Court, could give them weight that they don’t deserve on the bases that the signing of the bill, although carried out by the Executive, is nonetheless a legislative act.