Thread: Bush Impeachment

We have had plenty of threads about the possibility of impeachment for the commander in question. On every one there is the same question asked, what laws did the meat head break. Well I am not endorsing impeachment I do however support prison time. But to the question;

Our inquiry was limited to only 30 instances of agency action and did not include a close examination of provisions involving national security, intelligence, or foreign relations matters, because of our limited access to such information and the time constraints on our work. We found that in 9 of these 30 instances, agencies had not executed the provisions as written. Importantly, we also found that federal courts are not using signing statements as common sources of authority for statutory interpretation.

Yep signing statements. Now I know that presidents have used them in the past so do not say that. In the past when they were used they said crap like "I would like to thank Senator Dumbass or Congressman Ilikeboys for their work on this bill", but no this clown uses them as his private, you can't fuck with it, line item veto's. Thats is skirting congress and shows a total lack of respect for the law. Hey Bush :flickoff:

PDF Here...........

A POTUS does not have line item veto power.

Originally Posted by michaelr

We have had plenty of threads about the possibility of impeachment for the commander in question. On every one there is the same question asked, what laws did the meat head break. Well I am not endorsing impeachment I do however support prison time. But to the question;



Yep signing statements. Now I know that presidents have used them in the past so do not say that. In the past when they were used they said crap like "I would like to thank Senator Dumbass or Congressman Ilikeboys for their work on this bill", but no this clown uses them as his private, you can't fuck with it, line item veto's. Thats is skirting congress and shows a total lack of respect for the law. Hey Bush :flickoff:

PDF Here...........

Regardless of the content of previous signing statements, the fact that they have been made and gone unchallenged for more than a century establishes very clear precedent.

And the constitution doesn't explicitly ban them.

Remember, even the veto now is used in a way never intended by the writers of the constitution.

The veto was supposed to be used by the president to prevent unconstitutional bills from becoming law.

Not because he doesn't like the budget congress has passed.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

A POTUS does not have line item veto power.

No it was ruled unconstitutional during the Clinton era.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Regardless of the content of previous signing statements, the fact that they have been made and gone unchallenged for more than a century establishes very clear precedent.

And the constitution doesn't explicitly ban them.

Remember, even the veto now is used in a way never intended by the writers of the constitution.

The veto was supposed to be used by the president to prevent unconstitutional bills from becoming law.

Not because he doesn't like the budget congress has passed.

This PDF is from an oversight committee, you should give it a read. What Bush has done should be against the law. Key I said in the OP that sining statement have been used and explained how, I asked that it does not get brought up as it is apples and oranges. Bush uses them like no other as his little line item veto, the idiot dems don't seem to mind as one of theirs will be empowered and will continue the usage. It's wrong, and it skirts the law and the makes the bill worthless!

Originally Posted by michaelr

This PDF is from an oversight committee, you should give it a read. What Bush has done should be against the law. Key I said in the OP that sining statement have been used and explained how, I asked that it does not get brought up as it is apples and oranges. Bush uses them like no other as his little line item veto, the idiot dems don't seem to mind as one of theirs will be empowered and will continue the usage. It's wrong, and it skirts the law and the makes the bill worthless!

My computer can't read it. Don't know why.

But anyway.

You said "what Bush has done should be against the law"

Obviously since you are admitting it, it IS NOT currently against the law.

Second point.

Even if it is against the law

Does it rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor?

As the Clinton and Johnson impeachments established, simple violations of the law are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

The crimes of President Nixon almost certainly did rise to that level, but he resigned before impeachment (because he knew it was inevitable).

Originally Posted by Dayton3

My computer can't read it. Don't know why.

But anyway.

You said "what Bush has done should be against the law"

Obviously since you are admitting it, it IS NOT currently against the law.

Second point.

Even if it is against the law

Does it rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor?

As the Clinton and Johnson impeachments established, simple violations of the law are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

The crimes of President Nixon almost certainly did rise to that level, but he resigned before impeachment (because he knew it was inevitable).

I knew when I typed that you would say word for word what you said. The matter of signing statements is being looked at to determine law. The PDF is an opening statement. I will post it in it's entirety.

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at 12:00 p.m. EST

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS
Agency Implementation of Selected Provisions of Law

Statement of Gary L. Kepplinger General Counsel

GAO-08-

PRESIDENTIAL SIGNINGSTATEMENTS

Agency Implementation of Selected Provisions of Law

What GAO Found

In our opinions, we examined how agencies were implementing certain provisions to which the President objected in the signing statements. In developing our first opinion, we examined all the signing statements accompanying the fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts, identified 160 specific provisions of law to which the President objected, and categorized each provision according to the nature of the President’s stated concern. The President’s objections to a majority of provisions fell under broad categories, four of which we summarize in the testimony: President’s theory of the unitary executive, President’s constitutional role,

INS v. Chadha, and Fifth Amendment.

We then chose 19 provisions to learn whether the agencies were executing the provisions as written. In considering which provisions would be appropriate for further inquiry, we excluded provisions for which it would be difficult to determine whether the President was executing the provision, either because of the breadth of the executive action covered or because the information would not be readily available due to national security or foreign relations concerns. GAO also looked at 10 other provisions from various laws identified by congressional requestors to which the President objected in order to ascertain how agencies were executing the provisions.
In total, GAO examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of law. GAO determined that in all but 9 cases the agencies had either taken actions to execute the provisions as written, or conditions requiring agency action had not occurred. In the remaining 9 cases, GAO found that the agencies had not executed the provisions as written. We did not assess the merits of the President’s objections or examine the constitutionality of the provisions to which the President objected. Although we found that agencies did not execute 9 provisions as written, we could not conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements. We also examined the extent to which federal courts have relied on signing statements in their interpretation of federal statutes. GAO found that only in rare instances have courts treated presidential signing statements as authoritative sources of statutory interpretation.

While GAO’s prior work did not involve any provisions in the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2008, three provisions in the NDAA to which the President objected are similar to provisions we examined in our earlier opinions. We found that agencies had not executed two of these earlier provisions as written.

To reduce any effect signing statements may have on agency execution of statutes, Congress may wish to focus its oversight work to include those provisions to which the President objects to ensure that the laws are carried out.

More to come do not respond yet...

Chairman Snyder, Representative Akin, and Members of the Subcommittee:

We appreciate the opportunity to be here to participate in today’s hearing on the use of presidential signing statements. Signing statements usually take the form of a presidential statement or press release issued in connection with the President’s signing of a bill. Some signing statements praise the newly signed law and those involved in its passage. In other signing statements, presidents have offered their interpretation of or have explained how agencies will execute a new law. Presidents have also raised constitutional concerns or objections to new statutes in signing statements. These concerns or objections are rooted in the President’s understanding of his constitutional role and powers. Not all laws have accompanying signing statements.

My testimony today focuses on the practical consequences of the President’s objections to particular provisions of certain acts, specifically, (1) categories of presidential concerns or objections, (2) agency actions, (3) courts’ use of signing statements, (4) application of our findings to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, and (5) observations. These remarks are based on two legal opinions issued last year.1 In developing our first opinion, we examined the signing statements accompanying the fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts, identified 160 specific provisions of law to which the President objected, and then categorized each of these provisions according to the nature of the President’s stated concern. We then chose 19 provisions to find out whether the agencies were executing the provisions as written. In the second opinion, we examined 10 provisions identified by the requestors to which the President objected to determine how the agencies were carrying them out.

In total, we examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of law. As explained in detail later in my testimony, we determined that in 16 cases the agencies had taken actions to execute the provisions as written. In 5 cases we found that the provisions were not triggered. In the remaining 9 cases we determined that the agencies had not yet executed the provisions or had not executed the provisions as written.2 In neither
1

Presidential Signing Statements Accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Acts, B-308603, June 18, 2007; Presidential Signing Statements—Agency Implementation of Ten Provisions of Law, B-309928, Dec. 20, 2007.

2

One provision we examined for our second opinion applied to two different agencies, so we examined agency action in 30 instances rather than 29.

Page 1 GAO-08-553T

opinion did GAO assess the merits of the President’s objections or examine the constitutionality of the provisions to which the President objected. Although we found that agencies did not execute some provisions as written, we could not conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements.

Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have issued signing statements since the early nineteenth century. According to the Congressional Research Service, signing statements became increasingly common since the Reagan Administration and have been used by Presidents to raise constitutional objections to congressional enactments.3

Of particular concern to this committee is the statement issued by the President when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2008 NDAA).4 In it, the President objected to four provisions of law because they "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief."5 The President stated, "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."6

In our prior work on signing statements, we categorized the provisions we examined by the specific wording the President used in his signing statement to identify his concern or objection. We found that the
3

Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications, No. RL33667 (Sept. 17, 2007), at 2. According to CRS, as of September 17, 2007, President Bush had issued 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) raised constitutional concerns or objections. In comparison, President Clinton issued 381 statements in 8 years, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional concerns, and President George H. W. Bush issued 228 signing statements over 4 years, 107 of which (47%) raised constitutional concerns or objections. Id.

4

Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3 (Jan. 28, 2008).

5

President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law (Jan. 28, 2008) available at President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law (last visited Mar. 7, 2008).

6

Id.

Page 2 GAO-08-553T

President’s objections to a majority of provisions fell under broad categories, four of which I will briefly summarize.7

The President’s Theory of the Unitary Executive

In signing statements the President has often objected to provisions on the ground that the provisions interfere with "the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."8 The Constitution does not mention the "unitary executive," nor do the signing statements in which the term appears explain its meaning. The theory of the unitary executive is rooted in Article II of the Constitution and, specifically, in the vesting in the President of the executive power9 and the President’s duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."10 The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that because the Constitution entrusts the President with the executive power, executive branch employees and officers exercise this power through delegation from the President. Thus, the President has an exclusive right to supervise and rely on his subordinates which may not be burdened by the other branches of government without impermissibly interfering with the President’s constitutional authority.11 Provisions to which the President objects on this ground require some action, such as transmittal of information to Congress or consultation with Congress or its committees.

Many of the President’s objections relate to government functions for which the President asserts primary constitutional authority. For example, the President commonly objects to provisions regarding command and control of the Armed Forces and the handling of intelligence information on the grounds that such provisions impermissibly burden his authority as