Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush signing statements -slipping past the public

  1. Sep 30, 2006 #1
    For every bill passed by congress a president has the option to add to, or take away from that bill. Bush has set a new record.



    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

    For the first time in my life I feel that there is an irreversable change empowering the executive branch. And it is happening in ways that I previously would have read only in a work of fiction.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2006 #2
    Astonishing! :bugeye: He is absolutely fearless in his pursuit of an alternative reality of law. So he does, in fact, reserve the right to torture whenever he feels like it, whatever Congress says. Horrific! Look at this one:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

    There you go - he censors scientific research, he admits it proudly!
     
  4. Sep 30, 2006 #3
  5. Sep 30, 2006 #4
    The American bar association thinks that the statements are unconstitutional also.

    http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2006/07/legal_group_bus.html

    Bush has signed more than all previous presidents combined. There is a definite advantage to having the Attorney General in ones hip pocket.
     
  6. Sep 30, 2006 #5
    This is just one paragraph of a signing statement.

    The bill signed was:
    "H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006"

    The full signing staement is located at:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

    Some of this is business as usuall in D.C. Because politicians are allowed to mix oranges and apples in that they frequently include something in a bill that has nothing to do with that bill. But it also is a good example of how missuse of signing statements can allow potential nefarious actions to be slipped past the scrutiny of the general public.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2006
  7. Oct 2, 2006 #6
    This is a prime example of why the founding Fathers included checkes and balances on the branches of government. Bush is blatantly violating them.
     
  8. Oct 2, 2006 #7

    how in any situation can censoring scienfic information from congress in any way impair national security? i can think of some creative ways this could be abused but i cant think of any positive uses for this
     
  9. Jan 4, 2007 #8

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Yet another example; this one from December 20th for a bill so boring the signing and its accompanying statement slipped by without notice.

    The bill, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The first two pages capture the essence of the changes: changes to pensions and health care of postal workers.

    The Bush signing statement.. The sixth paragraph "construes" that federal officials may open the mail without a warrant.
     
  10. Jan 5, 2007 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act" has to do with the expenditures of the Postal Service, so where does Bush come off with interpreting Title 39 of the US Code.
    Well - reading USC 39, 404 - there is no 404(c)! But then that could be an out-of-date version, or is Bush making things up, or is there an error in the Whitehouse publication?

    For that matter, there is no 1010(e)!
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+39USC1010

    And there is no 404 in 49CFR - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/49cfrv5_99.html

    nor is there 1010 in 49 CFR - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/49cfrv6_99.html#1000

    I guess making up laws is not so important. :rolleyes: Besides, the legislative branch is supposed to enact laws and the presidential authority is limited to agreeing (signing) or disagreeing (vetoing) with the law.

    Edit: 49 CFR is wrong.

    But there is no 404 or 1010 in 39 CFR either - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/39cfrv1_00.html

    So the Title 49 refers to US Code.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2007
  11. Jan 5, 2007 #10

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    HR 6407 created a 404(c): From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-6407
    SEC. 102. POSTAL SERVICES.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (6) and by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

    `(c)(1) In this subsection, the term `nonpostal service' means any service that is not a postal service defined under section 102(5).

    `(2) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit or require that the Postal Service provide any nonpostal service, except that the Postal Service may provide nonpostal services which were offered as of January 1, 2006, as provided under this subsection.

    `(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall review each nonpostal service offered by the Postal Service on the date of enactment of that Act and determine whether that nonpostal service shall continue, taking into account--

    `(A) the public need for the service; and

    `(B) the ability of the private sector to meet the public need for the service.

    `(4) Any nonpostal service not determined to be continued by the Postal Regulatory Commission under paragraph (3) shall terminate.

    `(5) If the Postal Regulatory Commission authorizes the Postal Service to continue a nonpostal service under this subsection, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall designate whether the service shall be regulated under this title as a market dominant product, a competitive product, or an experimental product.'.
     
  12. Jan 5, 2007 #11

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's because it's Title 39, not 49. Actually, my original link was to the cost estimate rather than the actual bill. The actual bill, HR 6407, has the applicable info: Title 39 - Postal Service

    Section 1010(e) of the bill does change section 404 to:

    Boldface section is the section that Bush 'clarified' in his signing statement.
     
  13. Jan 5, 2007 #12

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ack! My mistake. I linked to USC 39 - but typed 49.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2007
  14. Jan 5, 2007 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bushes signing statement -
    seems to contradict -
    I don't see how the administration can legally do a search without a warrant when the law as enacted by Congress clearly requires a warrant. Basically, if exigent circumstances means that the government can intercept and open mail without warrant, then Bush is arguing that he can overide the public law at his discretion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2007
  15. Jan 5, 2007 #14
    The Attorney General is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the President. All Presidents have enjoyed this advantage.
     
  16. Jan 5, 2007 #15

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    We're in a war against terror - a long war that could last decades. That's exigent circumstances that will last quite a long time.
     
  17. Jan 5, 2007 #16
    It could easily last decades, but exactly how does the administration define exigent circumstances. So far they seem to have their own definition of everything. Does exigent apply to a bunch of kids planning a war protest? My opinion is that with the Bush administration, yes it does.
     
  18. Jan 5, 2007 #17

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    My understanding of these things is that they are basically a way for a president to express dissent, but they are not themselves enforceable as legislation. The real issue would be if he actually broke the law and followed what he wrote in the signing statements instead. Simply saying he has a right that he doesn't actually have isn't that big of a deal, but exercising a right he doesn't have is.
     
  19. Jan 5, 2007 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I disagree.

    From Charlie Savage's article which broke the signing statement story:

    So here's the deal: this single signing statement sends any potential whistleblower back into his/her closet and the point of passing the whistleblower protections in the bill has been essentially nullified.

    That's one reason that makes it quite big of a deal.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=1
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2007
  20. Jan 7, 2007 #19

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Is there any history of a president actually doing what he says he can do in a signing statement? I can certainly think of instances of a president disregarding legislation or court rulings he doesn't like, but has it ever happened because of a signing statement? It seems to me that something like this:

    Is a much bigger deal. In a case like this, he is actually disregarding the law entirely and just doing whatever he pleases. Its actions like this that raise a concern. Signing statements themselves are nothing new and do not give him this authority. I ask in part because of the date on this article. I remember when this first came a while back and it was one of those "issues of the day," and it was quickly forgotten and never seemed much of a deal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2007
  21. Jan 13, 2007 #20
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush signing statements -slipping past the public
  1. Bush Bush Bush (Replies: 6)

  2. Public Pensions (Replies: 73)

Loading...