Text 1418, 306 rader
Skriven 2006-06-26 06:33:49 av John Massey (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 1410 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
Ärende: Huh?
============
"BOB KLAHN -> JOHN MASSEY" <1:123/140> wrote in message
news:17815$POL_INC@JamNNTPd...
BK> ...
DC>>> It's common knowledge that GWB did add a signing statement to
DC>>> that bill. And, he openly stated that it didn't apply to
DC>>> his rulings on what constitutes torture.
JM>> Then you should not have a problem providing a cite.
BK> That has been in the news so much, it's obvious you are just
BK> wasting time.
**************************************************************************
BK> THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
BK> <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/>
BK> Hearing set on signing statements
BK> Senate panel will probe rationale for Bush actions
BK> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 22, 2006
BK> WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter
BK> yesterday scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday on President
BK> Bush's use of signing statements to claim the authority to
BK> disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.
BK> Specter said he is asking the Bush administration to send an
BK> official from the Justice Department to testify before the
BK> committee about the president's legal contentions, as well as
BK> several constitutional law scholars. It was not yet clear who
BK> from the administration would come, he said.
BK> ``I think that the president is trying to expand his executive
BK> authority at the expense of Congress's constitutional
BK> prerogatives, and it's very problemsome," Specter said in a
BK> phone interview. ``I want to get into the details with the
BK> administration on what they think their legal authority is."
BK> A signing statement is an official document in which a
BK> president, while signing a bill, tells the federal government
BK> how it should interpret it. Bush has used signing statements to
BK> reserve the right to disobey more than 750 laws, saying that
BK> they conflict with the powers he believes the Constitution gives
BK> to him.
BK> Specter said he was particularly troubled by Bush's contention
BK> in December 2005 that he had the authority, as commander in
BK> chief, to bypass a law known as the McCain Amendment, which
BK> outlawed torture. The torture ban had passed both chambers of
BK> Congress overwhelmingly.
BK> ``When the signing statements reach a point as they did with
BK> the McCain Amendment, which passed [90-9] in the Senate, and
BK> the president cherry picks [what laws he must obey or can
BK> ignore], it's pretty flagrant," Specter said.
BK> Among the witnesses at the hearing will be Nicholas Rosenkranz
BK> , a former Bush administration lawyer who is now a Georgetown
BK> University law professor. Rosenkranz said he was still working
BK> on his testimony, but planned to address the merits of Bush's
BK> contentions as well as what sorts of things Congress could do if
BK> it did not like the signing statements.
BK> Another witness will be Bruce Fein , a former lawyer in the
BK> Reagan administration who also sits on a task force the
BK> American Bar Association has convened to evaluate Bush's use of
BK> signing statements. Fein said he plans to tell the committee
BK> that it should include in all legislation a provision that cuts
BK> off funds for everything in the bill if a president uses a
BK> signing statement to exempt himself from following some part of
BK> the bill.
BK> Specter has been one of the most outspoken among Republican
BK> congressional leaders in criticizing the Bush administration's
BK> expansion of its own powers, leading to grumbling among some in
BK> his party that he has gone too far.
BK> ``Constitutional responsibility come s far ahead of party
BK> loyalty," he said yesterday.
BK> © Copyright
BK> <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright> 2006 The
BK> New York Times Company
**************************************************************************
BK> OUTLOOK
BK> June 19, 2006
BK> Caught in the Middle
BK> By Brian Friel, National Journal
BK> <http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly>
BK> Is President Bush defying Congress? That is what critics say
BK> he's doing when he signs bills into law but also issues
BK> "signing statements" challenging the constitutionality of
BK> provisions in those laws.
BK> Bush has issued signing statements for more than 100 laws in
BK> which he argues that Congress has stepped unconstitutionally on
BK> a variety of presidential powers, from his role as
BK> commander-in-chief to his authority to conduct foreign policy to
BK> his control of the executive branch. The pronouncements imply
BK> that his administration isn't going to carry out any such
BK> mandates.
BK> Critics say that the signing statements are being used to
BK> counter congressional attempts to direct executive branch
BK> actions, part of a broader Bush administration effort to expand
BK> executive power.
BK> Signing statements gained prominence in December, when Bush
BK> issued a declaration in response to an amendment banning torture
BK> of prisoners in U.S. custody. The law's language had been
BK> brokered with the White House by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but
BK> Bush declared he would construe the provision "in a manner
BK> consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to
BK> supervise the unitary executive branch and as
BK> commander-in-chief, and consistent with the constitutional
BK> limitations on the judicial power."
BK> Though the administration says it does not use torture, critics
BK> said the statement gave the executive branch wiggle room to
BK> torture prisoners.
BK> Criticism of signing statements has been rising ever since. The
BK> Boston Globe published a series of articles beginning in April
BK> questioning the use of the statements on some 750 provisions.
BK> Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., wants
BK> Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to come to Capitol Hill to
BK> explain the use of signing statements. "The president has
BK> asserted his authority to pick and choose what he likes and what
BK> he doesn't like in legislation," Specter said on the Senate
BK> floor on May 26.
BK> The American Bar Association has launched a skeptical review.
BK> "It is an issue that really implicates the very foundation of
BK> our democracy," ABA President Michael Greco, a Boston lawyer,
BK> said in an interview. "The Founders created equilibrium among
BK> the three branches, and there is concern that the executive
BK> branch has created an imbalance in that equilibrium."
BK> The administration's interpretation of part of the torture
BK> amendment, concerning whether prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have
BK> the right to appeal their detention in federal court, is being
BK> considered by the Supreme Court and lower courts -- which have
BK> never used a signing statement to determine a statute's meaning.
BK> Meanwhile, however, most of the signing statements issued by
BK> Bush -- and past presidents, for that matter -- seem largely
BK> symbolic and do not necessarily change how agencies implement
BK> legislation, according to some scholars and a review of the
BK> implementation of several statements. Though the president's
BK> lawyers may raise legal arguments against congressional actions,
BK> bureaucrats across the federal government are reluctant to
BK> challenge the appropriators and committee chiefs who control
BK> their budgets.
BK> For the past three years, for example, Congress has included in
BK> major appropriations bills a provision blocking funding for an
BK> Office of Personnel Management review of the fairly common
BK> practice of "legislative branch details," in which executive
BK> branch employees spend as long as a year working in the Capitol
BK> Hill offices of members of Congress or congressional committees.
BK> In a signing statement, the Bush administration seemed to
BK> suggest that it would conduct the review of details anyway,
BK> explaining that the provision would be construed "consistent
BK> with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the
BK> unitary executive branch and as commander-in-chief, and
BK> recognizing that the president cannot be compelled to give up
BK> the authority of his office as a condition of receiving the
BK> funds necessary to carry out the duties of his office."
BK> Despite those assertions of authority, OPM abandoned its effort
BK> to monitor legislative branch details. "It just never took
BK> effect," OPM spokesman Michael Orenstein said.
BK> Bush also objected to a provision in last year's highway bill
BK> that instructed the Transportation Department to consult with
BK> lawmakers on appointments to a motorcycle safety council. Bush
BK> said he would interpret the provision "as calling for, but not
BK> mandating, such consultation." Nonetheless, the Transportation
BK> Department has been accepting advice from members of Congress on
BK> who should serve on the panel, letters from lawmakers to the
BK> department show.
BK> Several presidential and legal scholars said that the signing
BK> statements are best viewed as part of the constant struggle for
BK> supremacy between the legislative and executive branches, and
BK> that they usually serve as signals of principle that the
BK> president sends to Congress in that struggle.
BK> But on an informal basis, the agencies under the president and
BK> the committees that oversee them tend to cooperate on the
BK> implementation of policy. Louis Fisher, a specialist at the law
BK> library at the Library of Congress, said that Justice Department
BK> lawyers, the Office of Management and Budget, and the White
BK> House may issue such broad policy statements, but "the rest of
BK> government is just trying to get things done."
BK> Fisher, formerly an analyst at the Congressional Research
BK> Service, wrote in a November 2005 CRS report that congressional
BK> committees continue to exercise significant control over the
BK> actions of federal agencies, despite Bush's objections and those
BK> of past presidents who have argued that the agencies report to
BK> the White House, not to Capitol Hill.
BK> In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not force
BK> agencies to clear their actions with a congressional committee
BK> because such a requirement would violate separation-of-powers
BK> rules.
BK> The next year, appropriations committees included seven
BK> provisions in laws requiring agencies, NASA among them, to seek
BK> prior approval of actions from the committees. President Reagan
BK> implied that he would ignore the requirement. The House
BK> Appropriations Committee retaliated, saying that it would simply
BK> withhold money from NASA.
BK> Then-NASA Administrator James Beggs and appropriators ended up
BK> working out an informal procedure in which the appropriators
BK> would still get to pre-approve NASA decisions. Most agencies
BK> continue to operate under such arrangements with appropriations
BK> and authorizing committees; Fisher found that the budget manuals
BK> for the departments of Defense, Energy, Transportation, and
BK> Treasury all instruct agency officials to make sure that
BK> congressional committees approve of their plans.
BK> "If Congress wants to batter the agency head, they're going to
BK> get what they want," Fisher said. "All the legal arguments melt
BK> away."
BK> Christopher Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University
BK> of Ohio, said the signing statements are intended to influence
BK> executive branch officials perhaps even more than they are meant
BK> to influence courts. "Starting with the Reagan administration,
BK> [presidents] have put a lot of effort in trying to get the
BK> bureaucracy to bend toward the president's position," Kelley
BK> said.
BK> Kelley said that agencies may not follow through on some
BK> statements that are not particularly important to the
BK> administration, but they do heed others. In 2002, for example,
BK> Bush announced in the signing statement for the Sarbanes-Oxley
BK> corporate accountability law that he would interpret
BK> whistle-blower rights more narrowly than Congress had written
BK> them.
BK> Labor Department Solicitor Eugene Scalia followed through on the
BK> president's interpretation, issuing a brief adhering to Bush's
BK> guidelines. The department backed down, however, after pressure
BK> from lawmakers (and Scalia's departure from Labor).
BK> "In most of the cases where [presidents] make a challenge, most
BK> of them are not carried out," Kelley said. "They pick their
BK> battles."
BK> A Bush administration background paper says that presidents
BK> going back to James Monroe have issued signing statements,
BK> describing the practice as "an ordinary part of a respectful
BK> constitutional 'dialogue' between the branches." But Rep. Barney
BK> Frank, D-Mass., introduced a bill at the end of May that would
BK> create a procedure for Congress to overrule signing statements
BK> that challenge legislation.
BK> Frank said statements declaring portions of law
BK> unconstitutional are an abuse of power. "If we do something
BK> that's unconstitutional, he has two constitutional options:
BK> First, veto the bill. Secondly, arrange for it to go to court,"
BK> Frank said in an interview.
BK> Meanwhile, Bradley Patterson, a presidential scholar and a
BK> National Academy of Public Administration fellow, said the
BK> signing statements are part of a natural separation-of-powers
BK> struggle. "The president and the Congress are constantly
BK> conflicting and engaged in a massive and ancient conflict of
BK> influence and power," Patterson said. "It's kind of a game
BK> they're playing. Congress writes its statement in the law, the
BK> president writes his statement in the signing statement."
BK> And the bureaucrats who actually implement the laws are caught
BK> in between.
BK> This document is located at
BK> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0606/061906ol.htm
BK> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
BK> ©2006 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.
None of the above confirms the supposedly DIRECT QUOTE that started this.
My point being, if a person uses quote marks and attributes a remark to a
person it has to be exact, not paraphrased.
--- Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
* Origin: (1:123/789.0)
|