Miami Herald: Hold hearings on Signing Statements

[Tuesday_Morning]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16415082.htm

Guess who is opening, reading your mail
OUR OPINION: CONGRESS MUST HOLD HEARINGS ON SIGNING STATEMENTS

The postal legislation that President Bush signed into law last month seems innocent enough. It gives the government the right to open mail without a warrant if there is suspicion that it may contain a bomb, anthrax or some other threatening substance. President Bush said the law gives the government no power that it doesn't already have. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service agrees. But the law isn't as benign as it seems.

This law is more like the Trojan Horse of Greek mythology, in which the Greeks used a hollowed out giant wooden horse to invade and conquer Troy. President Bush attached a ''signing statement'' to the law that allows a president to authorize a search of mail in an emergency to ''protect human life and safety'' and ``for foreign intelligence collection.''

750 signing statements

<snip>

President Bush has used signing statements to allow to him to ignore the anti-torture legislation passed by Congress last year, to refuse to disclose information requested by the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks and to prevent an inspector general from conducting audits and oversight of spending by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, among other things.

The scope of the president's use of signing statements is breathtaking and scary. With a sweep of his pen, the president can intrude into citizens' private affairs, hide financial bungling by the government, negate months of hard work by Congress and commit or cover up a multitude of sins and wrongdoing. Congress has a solemn duty to, at minimum, conduct open hearings on the use of signing statements and demand a full accounting from the president.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Absolutely! And Now! nm

[Demeter]

9. Ditto! And If That Makes Me a Dittohead, So Be It!

[Slyder]

2. WTF?

In a signing statement the president cannot amend the law, but he can offer his interpretation. The president must interpret the law to enforce it. Signing statements have no force of law and are not mentioned in the constitution that I can find. The courts have final say on what the law means. If the president steps outside his prescribed bounds, Congress can impeach and remove him from office. We have never had a doctrine of the divine right of presidents, and this president looks increasing like a King Charles I (the legislature fixed him)or a King John (the barons and pope fixed him). Thank God at the moment there are a lot more Roundheads than Monarchists. Even my most neo-conservative friends are looking at this guy with dumbfounded expressions. Balance of power works!

[DavidDvorkin]

7. The King's trained troops won at first

But once the Roundheads and the New Model Army got their act together, the tide turned. Maybe we're finally at that point.

[Wilms]

3. K & R n/t

[OneBlueSky]

4. fuckin' A . . . n/t

.

[rodeodance]

5. congress sure has its hands full.

[rman]

6. definitely one for The Long List of things to fix

[Morgana LaFey]

8. k&r